MENU

HOMEPAGE

Animal Health/
Welfare/Zoonoses

Environment

Land Reform

Food

Science

Fishing

Tourism

Education

Cultybraggan
Farm

Trade

Book Reviews

Light Relief

Links

Glossary

Correspondence

Vacancies

Contact Us

Back to Tuberculosis Homepage

Westminster: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis Sub-committee

(24 February 2003)

Meeting with

The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, and

Mr Elliot Morley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Filed 28th Feb 2003)
www.land-care.org.uk

The following uncorrected evidence has been taken from the United Kingdom Parliament website. To view the original transcript please click here. Land-Care will incorporate any corrections as they become available.

Uncorrected Evidence presented by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB:

Professor John Bourne, Chairman,
Dr Rosie Woodroffe
Professor George Gettinby,
Sir David Cox

Mr Elliot Morley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Richard Cawthorne, Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer and
Ms Sue Eades, Head of Animal Disease Control Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

MPs present:
Mr David Drew, in the Chair
Ms Candy Atherton
Mr Colin Breed
Mr Michael Jack
Mr Bill Wiggin
David Taylor

Memoranda submitted by Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

Examination of Witnesses

PROFESSOR JOHN BOURNE, Chairman, DR ROSIE WOODROFFE, Member, PROFESSOR GEORGE GETTINBY, Member, and SIR DAVID COX, Member, Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, examined.

Chairman

120. If I could introduce things. Welcome again, Professor Bourne. I know that you have been around this track not under the guise of DEFRA but certainly under the guise of the previously conceived Agriculture Select Committee. We are fairly short on time so we are going to move on without any pleasantries. I am sure you have read the evidence from our previous session and saw that there was a stark contrast in evidence, I think it is fair to say, and I am sure we are going to find some interesting points today. This is obviously a topic of considerable interest and concern and anyone from the Princess Royal downwards has been commenting on it so we cannot in any way under-estimate the importance. If I could ask you to introduce your team, I think it would be useful from our perspective.

(Professor Bourne) Dr Rosie Woodroffe you will have met before, an ecologist now at the University of Davis, California; Professor David Cox, University of Oxford; and Professor George Gettinby, University of Strathclyde, who are both what I loosely call statisticians. You will get the drift of their expertise as we go through the discussions.

121. Obviously the nature of things is that you bring team members in when you think it is appropriate for them to answer. I am sure everybody will get the chance to make their point of view known. If I could lead in, looking at the current debate and the agreed position that there has been a significant rise in the level of bovine TB and also how DEFRA have responded to that, what is your view, firstly, on the figures? Is there a dramatic increase or is this just a backwash as a result of the non-testing during the foot and mouth period? How do you think DEFRA have responded in terms of the autumn package?

(Professor Bourne) Sir David at the outset estimated the likely increased incidence based on a number of criteria and the estimate that Sir David made was - and he can respond to this in a moment if he wishes- that there would be about a one and a half to two times increase initially with the resumption of testing following foot and mouth disease which would fall to about a 20 per cent increase over a 12 or 18-month period. We are not quite there yet but there does not seem to be much deviation from the prediction that he made in March/April 2002. So I suppose that is the first comment I would make. The second comment is that there has been an increase in the number of multiple breakdowns. You could of course ascribe that to increased badger activity, you could ascribe that to amplification within cattle herds. It is difficult to be totally prescriptive about which is contributing the most, but I would suggest that we bend more towards amplification within cattle herds and wildlife introduction of disease into these herds.

122. What about the Government's response in terms of the package?

(Professor Bourne) They had a problem on their hands, of course, in getting the testing underway, and catching up with the backlog. They are still catching up with the backlog and that in turn has had an impact on the field trial. We can better explain this when we talk about the active culling.

123. Were you consulted on the Government's autumn package? Was that part of the process of putting that package together?

(Professor Bourne) Not strictly, no, in that obviously we have on-going discussions with government but the autumn package was presented to me and I had something like 24 or 36 hours' notice to respond to that package. I was unable to get this to the group for their response so any response was entirely my own within a very short time-frame which, as I pointed out at the time to DEFRA, made it impossible for us to give a proper response. Nonetheless, the three objectives - namely to change policy on the basis of a threatened spread of the disease from cattle to cattle transfer has been encompassed within the policy initiative; there has been a move to make it easier for farmers to live with TB, and I think we would all applaud that without, one hopes, any potential for increasing the risk of spread of TB; and the third component of the autumn package, namely the gamma interferon trial, is something we need to discuss with you because we are concerned about that.

124. I picked that up from your letter and I think we need to move on to that in the future. Before I bring Bill Wiggin in, can I just check whether you were actually looking at the impact of cattle spread of bovine TB in terms of any changes in movement controls?

(Professor Bourne) We were concerned and have been concerned for some time about the spread of TB outside the trial hot spots, as indeed we are concerned about what is going on in hot spots, and to better inform the debate on what to do outside trial areas we instigated a number of initiatives. One is that we looked at data from what one might call the new hot spots in Staffordshire and Shropshire and under our direction we got this data analysed by epidemiological groups from the University of Warwick and the University of Cambridge, Dr Lawler (?) agreeing with the analysis of this data. We did so because we wanted to get some feel if we could for what we recognise is inadequate data and data which at the outset was not collected for epidemiological study but nonetheless might throw up some useful information. The finding of that hot spot analysis was that they were unlikely to have developed from wildlife transmission alone. There was almost certainly a cattle component. We could not dismiss wildlife but there was this cattle component which suggested cattle to cattle transmission was having an influence. We also looked and analysed data on the inconclusive reactors. We also revisited old data from previous BROs to see if this would shed any light on the potential for culling in a localised situation outside trial areas. We found we could not add to what Krebs had said that there was no evidence that localised culling had any impact on cattle TB incidence, and we also drew up proposals for a gamma interferon field trial. So we were very concerned about what was going on outside trial areas and we spent a lot of time going through various initiatives, we reported back on that in the Strategic Forum in October and we developed this timetable in conjunction with DEFRA, and the development of this would go back probably 12 or 15 months prior to October.

Mr Wiggin

125. I am not sure I understand correctly. Did you just say that the Government did not consult with you properly on their autumn package and yet they are waiting for you to give them a definitive steer on what to do about this disease? Is that right?

(Professor Bourne) I saw the autumn package proposals in August 24 or 36 hours before it was sent on to ministers. We have had minimum opportunity of responding to it since. We were given an opportunity to make some comment and this was in --- I forget the details but effectively the group were not given any opportunity and I was given a very foreshortened opportunity.

(Dr Woodroffe) I simply wanted to add to what Professor Bourne was saying apropos your question about cattle movements to say that the TB99 study also is potentially studying impact of cattle movement.

(Professor Bourne) David, do you wish to comment?

(Sir David Cox) No, thank you.

Chairman

126. To wrap this all up with a final question which is, if you like, the one that the NFU highlighted last week in that we are going to talk about pre-testing but also the extent to which movement restrictions whether in place or, as I say, now having been relaxed should be a crucial part of this study that you are undertaking.

(Professor Bourne) It is interesting for us to look back and indicate to you what we believe we have achieved over the last five years as ISG. Certainly when we entered this debate there was a large amount of dogma that indicated that cattle-to-cattle transmission was not an issue, it was primarily a wildlife problem that we were dealing with, and that a cattle-to-cattle problem was not an issue because it was dealt with very effectively in cattle by the use of tuberculin testing. We questioned that, we supported it with scientific data subsequently, and the result is there has been a complete culture change in attitudes toward TB and the way one thinks about it and that culture change is now entering into new policies. We have indicated that there has to be a degree of cattle-to-cattle transmission. We are dealing with an infectious disease of a number of species. Infectious diseases move around. Cattle-to-cattle is a reality. We recognise from experimental work that this can occur in the very early stages of infection and is not restricted to the well-developed late clinical case of which we see very few. We recognise that the early transmitter cannot necessarily be picked up by the tuberculin test. We have also highlighted problems with the tuberculin test which have been experienced in other countries, not just in the United Kingdom where in Ireland it has been reported to have a sensitivity as low as 65 per cent and in Australia it can be as low as 62 or 65 per cent. So we have a problem there that is now recognised. I think what DEFRA have done with the autumn package is eminently sensible in focusing on cattle movement and cattle transmission. Given that we have no adequate data yet to advise on the wildlife component and what we do about it, and while we fully support the gamma interferon tests (we highlighted this almost from day one and we took it in fact to the TB forum in October 1988 as a potential for use in the field) we are concerned that the gamma interferon test has been applied without any scientific rigour. We have worked extremely hard to get scientific rigour into that field trial with thus far no effect.

127. So are you in any way engaged with the work that is going on with the gamma interferon test or are you basically just letting DEFRA push that in its own direction?

(Professor Bourne) We are engaged very forcibly but what we are engaged in doing is to persuade DEFRA of the common sense of our approach and to hope that they will apply that in practice.

Mr Jack

128. Were you in any way surprised at the fact that bovine TB started to break out outside the hot spot areas?

(Professor Bourne) No.

129. Why?

(Professor Bourne) It was quite clear that cattle movements were going to take place in new areas, referring here to areas particularly in northern England where indeed there had been outbreaks but no history of the development of hot spots or large number of outbreaks, and one would anticipate that cattle movement could lead to these outbreaks developing. I am more concerned about the development of new hot spots at the moment outside of the traditional hot spots than what is going on within the hot spots. That would be my major concern and I discussed this with the CVO in March when I indicated to him what our concerns were and the way you were going to prevent the development of these hot spots was to really throw everything you had at eliminating the disease from these areas, which would involve increased rigour with tuberculin testing, which of course has been done. I believe one could go further than this by considering the use of gamma interferon testing in these breakdown herds but I do think also that more pre-emptive thought should have been given to this likelihood of breakdowns occurring which was absolutely predictable.

130. Given that you have made a number of predictions over the years you have been involved in this area of study and you indicated that you had discussions with DEFRA and yet DEFRA gave you three weeks to comment on their latest proposals, do you think they take you seriously?

(Professor Bourne) I would hope so. I think they do. I certainly think they do but I do think the CVO in particular has one tremendous job on his hands getting to grips with the whole of the animal health problem. They are undoubtedly restricted by cash availability for support for the SVS, which I see as a really serious issue, and every time we discuss the TB work with the Minister we express our concern about the resource available for the SVS and the pressures that they are put under. In general, as I say, I would hope they take us seriously but I must say there are one or two other areas where we do have concern about the rigour with which they respond to the things that we ask them to do. Some of this will become clear as our discussions proceed.

Ms Atherton

131. Ten years ago in my previous life as a journalist I used to visit farms where farmers had completely lost all of their stock and all of them said that they saw the ultimate answer possibly as being vaccination and that it would take ten years. I see from my cuttings ten years down we seem to be no further and people still seem to be talking about ten years. What is happening in this country and particularly what is happening overseas? Can you describe some of the work and is that providing some enlightenment and some hope?

(Professor Bourne) We are near to completing a Vaccine Scoping Study where we have looked at the issue in some depth and we would expect to report to Ministers probably before the end of March or a little after that. The bottom line is we believe there is no potential vaccine that could be considered for use in cattle at the moment.

132. None in cattle?

(Professor Bourne) None in cattle. There is no vaccine that shows any improvement upon the vaccine that has been used in the human field for many decades, BCG. The use of BCG even in the human field where it has been used in field trials has resulted in zero protection to 70/75 or 80 per cent protection. Experimental use of that vaccine in cattle has shown protection again of about 60 or 70 per cent. Field trials on the very small scale around individual farms over the past several decades have indicated it can be protective and effective. For large-scale field trials no effect has been shown but, not withstanding that data, we still believe BCG for other reasons cannot be considered for use in cattle at the moment. The question is can BCG be used in the shorter time-frame to protect wildlife and there is a possibility of that. Trials are taking place at the moment in Southern Ireland in conjunction with scientists from this country supported by DEFRA looking at the protective effect of BCG on captive badgers, badgers taken from the field and retained in captive facilities within Southern Ireland. That work is destined to end in about two years' time by which time we will have an indication of the likely protective effect of BCG. It will be most surprising if you do not show an effect. The question is what is the next step in developing a vaccine in the field, and it is taking it into the field but done in a scientific way so it shows clearly that the vaccine is having an effect not just on badger TB but on cattle TB breakdowns. That is the target and the many steps one has to take in getting to the point where you can show this has been impact on cattle TB will be very long, quite complicated scientifically, and quite costly.

133. You mention cost -

(Professor Bourne) --- If I could just finish. So with respect to cattle TB, I do not know whether one is looking for an improved vaccine in two years, five years or ten years, whatever. That is just to find an improved vaccine candidate. Having found that candidate, it is then a long haul to develop proof principle in taking it into the field, so we are talking I believe about the long medium to the long term cattle vaccine in reality. Whether one can get to a wildlife vaccine using BCG, even if one could, that is a medium-term timescale that you are looking at. There is no quick fix on this, which persuades us there have to be other control measures in the interim, which could extend from badger culling, on the one hand, to increased biosecurity around cattle which will include diagnosis on the other, and at the other extreme biosecurity including improved security without any wildlife involvement. I am afraid that is the reality of the position and that is what we are working hard to get scientific answers on to advise government on future policy options as quickly as we can.

134. You have answered most of the follow-up questions I was going to ask but do you think that this long to medium-term programme would be reduced with a further injection of funding into the private sector?

(Professor Bourne) No, I do not. Certainly not the private sector. I saw the comments from the NFU about private sector interest in this and they could get a vaccine in the field in two years. Frankly, that is wrong.

Chairman

135. Is it Dr Kalasko (?) who says he has got a vaccine ready to use?

(Professor Bourne) It was the Kalasko vaccine that was used in Malaya (?) trials in the field some years ago and it would be interesting for you to look in the Vaccine Scoping Report we intend to publish and look at Appendix 4. You will see reference to that particular trial that was carried out and you will not be particularly enthused by that.

Mr Wiggin

136. You said BCG was approximately 60 per cent effective on cattle

(Professor Bourne) 60 to 70.

137. Do you not think if we could use that vaccine, bearing in mind that cattle are very traceable, a fall by 60 per cent in the number of cases of TB would be a tremendous step in the right direction?

(Professor Bourne) Yes, but you have to qualify what you mean by protection. These animals are not sterilely protected. They still develop pathological lesions which although certainly will be reduced, they are still culture positive, so there is potential there for them still to transmit.

138. Surely that will fall?

(Professor Bourne) --- Excuse me, the problem arises that BCG itself interferes with the diagnostic test. The vaccine could be engineered to ensure that it did not confuse the diagnostic test. You can change the diagnostic test/epidemiology test but you are still left with the problem of having a wildlife reservoir and if wildlife stimulated a vaccinated protected animal it would respond immunologically and on the basis of current control strategies would be killed. So one would have to change one's control strategies, which I understand is no easy thing to do, and put in place other strategies and then one could have a problem with the vaccine being relatively ineffective of having a larger number of slaughter house casualties which would be eliminated from the food chain. We are told that EU measures are being taken to make those slaughter house condemnations far more rigid, which puts even greater pressure on a vaccine. These are real problems that would have been to be faced. It is no simplistic thing to think about applying a 60 or 70 per cent vaccine. Those are the very issues that we have laid out in the Vaccine Scoping Study to avoid the idea that there is a quick fix here and we can be rather flippant about how we are using these vaccines. The fact is you cannot.

(Dr Woodroffe) Could I just come back to Ms Atherton's question about timescale and cost just to point out this is not just a question on the badger vaccination side of technology and getting a good vaccine. As Professor Bourne has highlighted, we are still not in a position of being confident of what proportion of TB cases in cattle are originating in badgers, so even if we could find a protective vaccine for badgers we have got no information to know how that would lead to a reduction in risks to cattle. The culling trial will give us some sort of ball-park idea at worst of what proportion of TB cases in cattle are associated with badgers, at least a minimum. And I think at this point we do not know where that ball-park is so we are in the position of feeling quite strongly that at this point we would not be able to recommend, or at least I personally would not be able to recommend putting a great deal of hope in badger vaccination as a way of protecting cattle until we have got more information on the epidemiology of TB in badgers and the risk to cattle posed by badgers, both of which are going to come from the culling trial.

Mr Breed

139. The other side of the coin is cattle husbandry. Are you satisfied with the Government's approach to any research which is currently being undertaken into husbandry issues? What concerns, if any, do you have in respect of the general biosecurity message which is now being taken on board by farmers and the fact that might mask or ignore TB-specific biosecurity measures?

(Professor Bourne) There are many facets to that question. If I could perhaps address the last point first. There is general advice on biosecurity that farmers can take with respect to any infectious disease and this is being pulled together extremely well by the BCVA through the TB Forum and, as far as I know, that advice is being disseminated to farmers. There is some advice based upon anecdotal evidence certainly, perception, with some scientific basis for how one deals with the badger threat. This relates, as you know, it was discussed with you before, to the height of water troughs and all this sort of thing. I would have thought DEFRA have made sure that farmers are well aware of that advice. I think there is a dual responsibility here. DEFRA have a responsibility here, which I think in this respect they have met, and farmers have a responsibility to do what they can, and I have reason to believe that some farmers do and some do not. With respect to the research on husbandry, the main thrust of course from our perspective is through the TB99 Epidemiological Survey. As I indicated in my note to you, that has caused us problems and here I think one must question whether we have been taken seriously enough by DEFRA to ensure there has been adequate data compilation and collection. The figures I have presented with you for TB99, for instance, indicate that within trial areas, let's just focus on trial areas, there have been 838 breakdowns (that is the last complete set of data we have) for which we only have 103 complete data sets that we could subject to analysis. That is a very small capture rate. The 103 certainly will increase because we have now discussed with DEFRA and the SVS how one can target resource to increase the number of data sets available to us and we will expect that by April the number of data sets could be over 200, but there is still a large shortfall in data that could have been collected for us to analyse. We are only able now to carry out our preliminary analysis. You will recall for our early reports that it was on the basis of preliminary analysis that we would feel our way forward, as to whether we would wish to modify our TB99 questionnaire or not. What we do urge and shall continue to urge DEFRA is t they ensure that adequate resource is directed to the collection of TB99 data over the next 12 months, hen we anticipate something like 400-plus breakdowns in trial areas, to give us some more substantial amount of data that we can then analyse in the year 2004. Do you wish to respond to that, George?

(Professor Gettinby) If we got a normal year this year,2003,we would expect this to increase substantially. As Professor Bourne has said, we have about 840 TB herd breakdown cases of which we have 569 TB99 forms completed. The constraint is that each of those should have three controls. The number with at least one control is 103, so we are not getting the control information in to make the comparisons between the cases and the controls and this epidemiological analysis would contribute to possible animal husbandry events which might identify an increased risk in TB99. However, we are this month at the 40 per cent stage of the five-year culling trial and if everything went on course for each of the next three years, we would increase at 20 per cent for each of the years, so we are at the 40 per cent mark and moving on, so we could have a very good year this year if there were no other constraints on DEFRA collecting the TB99 data and in particular getting in the control data.

140. You know that these TB99 forms are considered to be rather time-consuming for farmers and vets. Would you propose, as has been suggested by some, a shorter version so you could increase the number of forms that you get back?

(Professor Gettinby) W have given a lot of thought to this. The reality is that collection which involves the farmer usually takes approximately two hours, two and a half hours at the most. A great deal more work has to be done once the veterinary officer takes it back and does completion at the desk stage. We do not think it has been too demanding at the farm level but the intent is if we could get sufficient TB99 with their controls we could do this interim analysis with a view to cutting down on the TB99 form completion in future years. So we are conscious of that but we have not been able to do that because we have not been able to get sufficient TB99 completions.

141. So you have not been able to draw any broad conclusions as yet from analysis of the TB99s you have actually collected?

(Professor Gettinby) The interim analysis for TB99 is scheduled over the next two or three months and we would expect by mid-summer to be able to draw some inferences from the TB99.

(Professor Bourne) There is no doubt that the SVS were faced with a considerable problem post-FMD. We are now seeing a response from DEFRA in that they are contracting outside help to support SVS in getting the TB99 data collected and compiled, but the problems that we identify which we did identify previously precede FMD, so it has been an on-going problem but now we do see some light at the end of the tunnel with this. It is important that we get total co-operation in getting this done and enough resource to get all of the breakdowns covered for the next 12 months in trial areas.

Chairman

142. Can I be clear for the record, what other species beside badgers are part of the road traffic accident survey?

(Professor Bourne) No other species.

143. Is that by choice?

(Professor Bourne) Yes, it is. The whole purpose of the road traffic accident survey was that it was the only way we had an opportunity of determining prevalence of TB in badgers outside the trial areas short of actually killing badgers and doing full PM as we do within trial areas. We do not know if the RTAS will be a useful indicator of prevalence. That is why we restricted it initially to the seven counties, the areas where the hot spots were so that we could get some data to validate the technique. You know the history of the RTA, and up to June last year although our target was 1,200 badgers a year in the first instance to give us an analysable data, again to feel our way forward, this is the way science develops, we only had 200-plus badgers up to June last year. Since then it has been contracted out to another group, it looks as though we will be on target from last June to this June to reach the 1,200 figure for the first time, but even then we do not expect any useful analysable data for another year after that.

Mr Breed

144. But will such data be available to use alongside Krebs' trial results?

(Professor Bourne) That was the point of doing it in the area where the Krebs trials were so that we could get some idea of validation.

145. So you think there will be sufficient numbers?

(Professor Bourne) We do not know. We have not been able to subject this to even preliminary analysis nor will we until we get the first 1,200 figure. We can then decide whether that target is high enough or not and we then move on from there.

146. To go back to the husbandry again, you will be aware that there are all sorts of suggestions coming in from one farmer in particular and I know others have suggested that the way in which the new designs for farm buildings affect the air quality and things like that. Has there been any research done into the new way in which cattle are housed as part of research in husbandry?

(Professor Bourne) No, not as part of the TB programme. I am sure this work is going on elsewhere but not as part of the TB research programme. We are aware that it is important to understand the root of transmission between cattle, is it nose-to-nose or is it across airspace. In the pathogenesis programme which we have advised DEFRA to put in place, and is in place, it is looking at attempting to answer those very simplistic questions which you would expect we would have answers to but we do not. That work is planned as part of the pathogenesis programme.

147. Before we finish that, has there been any work commissioned to assess any links between deficiencies of trace elements and susceptibility of cattle to bovine TB?

(Professor Bourne) No.

148. Presumably you do not believe there is any value in that. Finally, is there any husbandry-related research work which you would like DEFRA to fund as part of your remit?

(Professor Bourne) The question of trace element and the influence of that on disease status of cattle or badger is extremely difficult work to undertake. As far as I am aware, there are no facilities for doing that work in the United Kingdom in cattle. We certainly would be unable to do that work in badgers in the United Kingdom. There are far more important things for us to understand with respect to the epidemiology of the disease in both badgers and cattle and I would put trace evidence research very low on my list. It probably would not appear.

149. Is there any other research you think DEFRA should be funding in this area?

(Professor Bourne) No, I think in general the response of DEFRA to proposals has been adequate and I have no complaints about that. Most of the research we have advocated has been funded. We do have problems, as you know, with gamma interferon. We did propose a research programme on the breakdowns outside hot spots last year which DEFRA said they could not fund but, in fact, that has been overtaken by the study that is now in place on post-FMD breakdown restock farms which should provide interesting data. Of course, we could not have done that without FMD so it did provide a golden opportunity to do that.

Chairman

150. Were you integral to the way in which that research was set up?

(Professor Bourne) Many of the research projects that have been set up are based on concept notes written by the ISG and this was no exception in that respect. We wrote the concept note and that was then discussed with a number of scientific groups who were encouraged to put in built up proposals to this and this was subsequently funded by DEFRA so, yes, we were.

Mr Jack

151. As somebody who is an interested observer but not an expert in this field, do you know of any other cattle diseases where the timescale to investigate and evaluate data has been quite as long?

(Professor Bourne) BSE.

152. Does it match in terms of timescale the work that you are doing? I know that is continuing work but there does seem to be an imperative now that has been lacking.

(Professor Bourne) Yes, but I think you have to remember that although bovine TB has been a problem for decades, there was no forceful work done on understanding the pathogenesis of the disease in cattle until we put a programme in place in 1999. The fieldwork was directed to culling badgers and the way it was done (in an unstructured, non-scientific way) did not allow one to gain scientific evidence to take the next steps. It is worth dwelling on that for a moment because what we have done within the trial is pursue the badger culling policy as part of the trial but it is being done in a way that will provide sound scientific evidence to take those next steps. It is interesting to reflect that when the badger removal operation was in place 1,000 badgers a year on average were killed. We have averaged 1,000 badgers a year so far in the culling trial but last year we killed 2,500. That is in ten trial areas in hot spots of TB. You would expect that to be having an effect on local incidence of TB, if it is going to have an effect, and national figures. Time will tell just what influence it has. But to suggest DEFRA have let the thing slide over the last five years by fiddling while Rome burns I think is quite wrong. There has been a trial done in a way which does provide scientific data for next steps. There has been a move now to do something about controlling cattle to cattle movement and cattle to cattle transmission which you can see in their new policies, but these are the very arguments that we bring back to gamma interferon. That trial should be organised and scientifically designed not to answer one question which takes you nowhere but to provide information which allows us to take a subsequent few steps forward. That is the way science goes. It can be integrated into part of the policy approach in the way that the culling of badgers has been integrated, in our view, into a policy approach.

Mr Wiggin: Do you want to say a bit more about gamma interferon?

Chairman

153. We want to go on to look at the culling side and progress on that.

(Professor Bourne) I have embodied everything I want to say in what I have just said. We recognised from very early stages that we needed an improved diagnostic test to either complement or replace the tuberculin test. The tuberculin test has its faults as indeed does the gamma interferon test. We need to have information to give us a relative comparison of how they operate in the field. You can get some idea from work done overseas, but it has to be done in our own environment. There is an opportunity with the field trial, by including controls, to get a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of tuberculin compared to gamma interferon. There is other work which one can do to complement that, whole herd smaller studies, again based upon concept notes that we have written, but these two projects are complementary. DEFRA appreciated that we were developing protocols for the gamma interferon tests. They chose to develop their own protocols without informing us that they were doing so and they took their protocols into the field without giving us the opportunity of discussing their protocols with them or indeed our criticisms of their protocols. You asked earlier whether we were taken seriously by DEFRA. I do believe that Ministers have taken us extremely seriously and but for Mr Morley we would not now be discussing our protocols with DEFRA with a view to changing the scientific design of the interferon trials. I return to what I said about badger culling. We believe we need to put a scientific pilot trial in place to give us information to build on the next steps. When comparing the gamma interferon proposals that we made with the DEFRA proposals, the increasing cost relates to collecting blood and carrying out gamma interferon testing and asking the SVS to do a more diligent post mortem examination of animals that are killed. There will not be any more animals killed or very a few animals killed in the approach we have taken. We have suggested we work with 150 herds in the first instance, not the 600 that DEFRA are targeting. We do accept there is a legal problem in that we are getting results from gamma interferon tests but not using those results to take conceivably infected animals from the national herd. If you cannot overcome that barrier there is no way forward and we are just not going to get this data. We believe it is critical that we do. The concern we have is indicated by the efforts we have made to get our case across to DEFRA and DEFRA Ministers and we will continue to do so.

Chairman: We must finish on the trials.

Mr Wiggin

154. One of the problems we are worried about is that the trials will not be conclusive. I wonder if you are going to provide Ministers with an interim piece of advice and to what extent will any interim piece of advice allow policy to be formulated?

(Professor Bourne) DEFRA interim advice probably will not do that but, yes, we are committed to presenting interim advice to Ministers in the next two month time-frame on vaccine scoping, progress of the trial, TB99 and reactive strategy. TB99 we have discussed, reactive strategy we can embrace in comments now. We estimated 12 months ago that foot and mouth disease would not have a serious impact on the trial. In fact, it did give us opportunities to carry out work on restock farms which we have already discussed. There was certainly a loss of trial years, and you will recall from our Second Annual Report that the statistical power of the trial was based on triplet year badger figures in respect of the proactive cull. The efforts of the Wildlife Unit have regained lost ground so by the end of 2005 we would have met the fifth triplet year target which was our pre-FMD target in our Second Annual Report. Thus with respect to the proactive trial, the situation is fairly healthy. Just one proviso in that two of those proactive trials were delayed because of the impact of FMD, so there is a possibility that the data in those two proactive areas will be less vigorous because of badger migration. The evidence suggests to us that has not been a serious issue so with proactives we are looking, we believe, at a termination date of the end of 2005, possibly extending into 2006 by three to four months.

155. That is a fairly long time.

(Professor Bourne) It is what was predicted from the outset and we have not moved away from that. With reactive it is very different in that what triggers a reactive cull is a breakdown. With no testing in seven trial areas in 2001- 2002 it does result in seven lost triplet years. That has been further eroded by the backlog in reactive response experienced by the Wildlife Unit and whilst one would hope there will be a recovery in the next year, I anticipate there will be a further backlog at the end of this year. That is brought about by a number of reasons, firstly, the serious backlog in testing and the hump of breakdowns that one has to deal with. The difficulty of the Wildlife Unit forward planning the work programme in a reactive strategy at best is further compromised by the hump. It is also compromised by the time delay between the breakdown of incidence and the reporting of those to the Wildlife Unit. We have considered all these issues with DEFRA and we will report to the Minister on that in the next couple of months with optimism that the reactive culling will be back on track by the end of the next year but there will inevitably be some extension beyond 2005 before we can reach the 50 triplet years with reactive, but of course we are totally dependent on the strength of the data. One thing that helps us is the increased number of breakdowns which we are experiencing in trial areas which increases the statistical power for analysis. Do you wish to comment on that further, David?

(Sir David Cox) No, I do not think so. I think you have summarised all the key points.

156. Just briefly then, we have not got much hope on the vaccination front, we have not got much hope from your report coming out in March that the Government will be able to formulate policy on this; have we got any hope to look forward to at all or is it going to turn out that Princess Anne was right?

(Professor Bourne) Princess Anne is right but what Princess Anne did not answer is the question, okay, badgers are involved, but what the hell do you do about it? We do not know. That is the whole point of the trial. I repeat, if one looks back five years and sees where we have come from, there has been a complete culture change in the intellectual approach to TB with respect to recognition that something needs to be done about diagnostic testing and recognition that cattle movement is a reality. We still do not know what proportion of the disease is caused by cattle transfer and what proportion is caused by wildlife. We do not know that and it will be some time before we get answers. The policy has been developing based upon those hypotheses nonetheless. I return to the statement that we are culling badgers and if that is going to have an impact one would expect to see an impact, given we are working in hot spot areas, on national incidence of disease if it is going to be effective at all.

David Taylor

157. Professor Bourne, you referred a moment or two ago to your Second Report and in Appendix A of that report you resisted a call for reactive trapping of badgers and the killing of badgers outside the trial treatment areas, did you not? Do you think that advice should be changed in the light of the explosion of TB incidence that we have seen taking place over recent months? The NFU in their evidence to us were certainly pressing that that was in early need of overhaul.

(Professor Bourne) I can understand the frustration of the NFU and I have discussions with the NFU on a fairly regular basis but our position remains exactly the same. We have looked at past badger removal operation data and we could not move any further forward than Krebs on localised badger removal, that there was no evidence it had any impact on cattle TB. The whole point of the trial is to answer that question. Until we have the data from the trial to allow us to answer that question, we cannot move from our position and assume that culling badgers is going to have an impact. Scientifically we just cannot do that. I would go further and say there is no evidence it has an impact, there is no evidence it does not have an impact; there is a suggestion that it could make it worse. So, no, our position is unchanged. Rosie, would you like to answer, being on Krebs?

(Dr Woodroffe) I think I would simply concur. I was on the Krebs Committee but I would concur with everything you said.

(Professor Bourne) I would add one point. I believe there was virtual elimination of badgers from the Thornby area in the1970s and early 1980s. Krebs' conclusion from that was that provided compelling evidence for the involvement of badgers in cattle TB. I think in retrospect, given the evidence we have from Australia where they eliminated water buffalo, and evidence that I think is likely to come from Southern Ireland, that elimination of badgers would have an impact on cattle TB but the question is does anything short of elimination have an impact on cattle TB, and that is precisely what we are investigating in the trial. If I could just make one other comment. Australia controlled their TB by eliminating water buffalo. That is not all they did, they put in very strict, draconian biosecurity movement laws and they also used gamma interferon tests to augment the tuberculin tests. They were draconian in biosecurity in a way that we are not in this country.

Chairman

158. As somebody who has read the Thornby evidence one of the sad things about it was there was no scientific rationale ever carried out. The danger of that is it is anecdotal evidence rather than purely science. I am sure you would agree with that.

(Professor Bourne) I think an even bigger problem was there was no scientific design to the badger removal operations, and that is what we have attempted to put right in the trial.

(Dr Woodroffe) I simply wanted to add to that that whilst we are very interested in results coming from Southern Ireland I should add that that trial is basically comparing culling virtually all of the badgers with culling quite a lot of them and there are no culling experimental controls associated with that experimental design, unlike ours.

(Professor Bourne) May I make a final comment. I do not think it is generally appreciated the steps that we have achieved with DEFRA in the last 5 years to put in place a substantive research programme to address these very serious real problems. We have achieved a lot in the last 5 years and we are confident we will find answers to help ministers tackle this issue. We also stated from the outset that any approach will be multi-factorial, there is no magic bullet here, there is no golden bullet. It has to be a multi-factorial approach. Inevitably these approaches do take time to unwind.

159. Those final words are a very good point to finish on. Thank you for the evidence. You have left us with a few problems in terms of the report we have to compile. I had better pass on quickly and get the minister in now.

(Professor Bourne) We are quite happy to help you write it.

Chairman: One thing you can never offer to a select committee is to help them write a report. Thank you.

Chairman

160. Apologies for keeping you waiting. This is a fascinating topic and we could have spent another 2 hours with the ISG. There were a few issues that came through as a result of that. Would you like to start by introducing your team?

(Mr Morley) It is a pleasure. On my left is Richard Cawthorne, our Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, who is very experienced in this particular area. On my right is Sue Eades from our division that deals with this particular problem.

161. We had, as I say, a fascinating session with the ISG. To put it bluntly, they feel that what they are doing is very good and needs to be given its correct importance and also time so that the results can be properly compiled. They were quite critical of DEFRA in two areas, one the gamma interferon test, where they feel you have somewhat rail-roaded them in terms of the lack of science and the way in which that has been produced. Secondly, there remains some issues about resources and the degree to which although they accept you cannot throw resources at this, because that will necessarily bring forward some of the answers, there are some resource issues. Do you want to take those two issues on?

(Mr Morley) Certainly. Can I first say I very much welcome the opportunity to update the Committee with where we are with the whole issue of the Krebs trial and also our strategies for dealing with bovine TB. This is one of our biggest issues that we are facing at the present time in relation to animal health matters. We are devoting a lot of resources to this. We have found additional funding, particularly in relation to the backlog of testing. It is fair to say that the whole programme was seriously derailed as a result of FMD, when we had to shift our staff and our resources to the priority of fighting foot and mouth disease. That left us with a back log to deal with, which I am glad to say we have made very good progress on, it is down to about 6,500 test cases at the present time. In relation to the suggestions from the ISG - I would also like to put on record that I have a great deal of respect and every confidence in Professor Bourne and his team, they are a very important element in relation to the whole issue of finding the most workable solution for the problem of bovine TB - of course the gamma interferon test, which we are committed to and which we are implementing in relation to the pilot areas, the proposals from the ISG are very resource intensive. It also raises one or two ethical issues, such as suggestions in relation to testing for cattle and whether they should be reported or not, that we do need to address. The final proposals, as I understand it, from the ISG in relation to the gamma interferon test did not come through until the week before last. It is not as if we have been sitting on this for a long time, it was only very recently that their final suggestions in relation to the detail have been put to us, and we are considering that. As you will appreciate in relation to trying to get the best results in this trial the ISG have given us very, very sophisticated suggestions in relation to how it should be assessed. It may be that we can find similar evaluation without such a resource intensive way or a more cost-effective way. I do not think it unreasonable that we examine that. In the end the ISG proposals may be the best way forward, we do not rule those out. I do not want to get away from the fact that it is quite resource intensive in relation to what we have to do and would make demands upon our resources, which we have already committed in such things as reducing the backlog, for example. There is a resource issue for us to consider. That deals with the gamma interferon.

162. The second point is the resource issue.

(Mr Morley) I have put my finger on that. The SVS is a finite resource, even LVIs are a finite resource, it is not even a question of saying we could devote more resources and bring in more LVIs because there is a limit to the number of veterinary resources available. Our SVS are committed to a whole range of very important activities, which I am sure you as a Committee recognise are important, and we cannot, for example, devote one hundred per cent of our whole SVS simply on the issue of bovine TB. A balance has to be struck in relation to getting the effective results from properly scrutinised and effective scientific analysis of such things, like the new tests, and the available resources that we have and the demands made upon the Department.

163. Can you give us a feel for how many extra vets have been employed in terms of trying to deal with the backlog?

(Mr Morley) Most of those vets for dealing with the backlog would be LVIs from the private sector.

164. Do you want to write to us about that?

(Mr Morley) We did commit an additional £3 million, as you will be aware, and a lot of that was to pay for bringing in LVIs to try and address it.

(Ms Eades) A lot of the additional £3 million was spent on additional administrative resource in the Animal Health Office. The difficulty with LVIs is there is a limit on the number of practitioners that we use as LVIs who are experienced in large animal work and capable of carrying out TB testing in the field. Increasing the LVI resource is not a short-term measure at all.

(Mr Morley) I should have made it clear, one of the problems that we have, and it is back to the point I was making, is there is a limited pool of experienced vets. There has been a decline in large animal practice in the private sector. There is a real shortage of vets which has caused problems in relation to testing the programme. One of the ways that we want to combat this in relation to the submission that you have seen is to have trained technicians to specialise in testing, we would like to see them specialise in a range of tests, but this is an important one in relation to bovine TB. That is something that we are discussing with the RCVS. That may be an issue you will want to raise later on.

Mr Breed

165. At the NFU AGM the Secretary of State announced the Government was going to undertake a review of the TB strategy.

(Mr Morley) That is right.

166. What were the objectives of the review that was going to take place and how far has it gone?

(Mr Morley) It is normal that any strategy is periodically reviewed to look at exactly what the work is and to look at the kind of results that we are getting from it and to look at whether or not there are other areas that we ought to be considering in relation to any kind of strategy. Although this specifically focused on the issue of bovine TB, which is a very big issue for us, I do have to make it very clear that some of the claims that is it spiralling out of control, the spread is enormous and there is a huge upturn are really very premature because we do not know the increase in the spread until we have had proper evaluation by statisticians, and that will not be done until sometime in the summer when we are able to analyse the 2002 results. I think for people to claim there has been a sudden and sharp increase is not necessarily correct. I wanted to make that particular point. I should also say that, as you will be aware, we recently launched our Animal Health and Welfare Strategy and that looks at the whole issue of animal health and welfare right across the livestock industry. There are elements within any review of the Bovine TB strategy that will fall within that, biosecurity for example, animal movements, a whole range of issues which would be complimentary. There is obviously a major review on the whole approach.

167. Was the review of the strategy one that you were going to undertake anyway or was it prompted by an increase in the incidents of FMD? Why was this review undertaken now?

(Mr Morley) It is not unreasonable that periodically there is a review of any kind of strategy, that is the normal pattern within the Department. It is also following the Phillips Committee guidelines as well, where the Phillips Committee also in relation to the recommendations that they make is that scientific advice is periodically reviewed and is examined.

Mr Wiggin

168. I question whether you review a policy before you have a chance to analyse statistics on the increase in the number of cases. Surely you would normally review a policy after you analysed the statistics?

(Mr Morley) Not necessarily, because this strategy has been running for about 5 years. We would normally have a review in place on a 5 year period.

(Ms Eades) I was going to add, it would take us some time to review this strategy and we do not expect to have a complete review of this strategy in place until the end of the year and by that time we will, of course, have the opinions of the statisticians on the state of the epidemic at the moment. It is not a short process.

Mr Jack

169. Before I ask about the autumn package, one question that has been niggling at my mind is, why is it so difficult to deal with TB in cattle when we seem to have cracked it for human beings?

(Mr Morley) I am not sure it is quite as simple as that for human beings. When you think about it with all of the resources internationally which have been devoted to dealing with TB in human beings we still only have the BCG vaccination, nothing has come forward since then. There has been very, very limited progress in relation to combatting human TB and that might explain why it has been so difficult in relation to the progress in dealing with bovine TB.

(Mr Cawthorne) The other thing to bear in mind is that human TB in this country is largely derived from infection in cattle through milk and therefore it has been possible to take that source, pasteurise it and kill the TB organisms. What you are dealing with in cattle is a much more complex disease entity where you are basically trying to test the disease and remove the animals which are infected, coupled with a variety of controls. The epidemiology of the disease, indeed the disease itself in cattle, is extremely complex, as you are well aware. The answer to the human question is, we are able to identify the major route by which humans become infected and take action to remove or treat the source.

170. You made some changes in terms of the rules governing animal movements in the October 2002 announcement, and clearly that did not please everybody. In that context how do you balance the need to alleviate the economic and animal welfare problems against the risks of spreading the disease in terms of coming to your policy change?

(Mr Morley) I feel the autumn proposals dealt with the issue of trying to minimise the disease spread in the way that centres would be set up and the movement directly to slaughter, for example, or to a holding centre for calves which would be controlled I felt was getting the balance right between minimising the risk but also recognising the very real problems, which we do for those farmers who are locked in by movement restrictions. I have visited a number of farms myself, I have had meetings at farms where it affected farmers and I know the very real, practical financial consequences of those people under restriction. All of this work on bovine TB is not going to be rapid and I do not think we should try and mislead anyone. This is a debate which has been going on for 20 years or more. I believe we are taking the right action, which is Krebs experiment, which is exploring the link between wild life and cattle and also the potential role in relation to the epidemiology and spread but also looking at the cattle-to-cattle issue and looking at the vaccine development. I personally feel we are covering all of the areas that we need to cover without trying to be obsessed by any one reason. We have to explore a number of reasons.

171. Mr Cawthorne, you said in answer to my earlier question that this was indeed a very complex subject, given you have made some changes, particularly in the autumn package, are you in any way scientifically analysing the effect of those changes?

(Mr Morley) The changes are more management than scientific.

172. Given the management issues under the area of husbandry are part and parcel of the way that you are looking at strategies to combat the strain of bovine TB here at a time when cattle movements have been associated with the spread of the disease - our previous witnesses gave us a flavour of that - I just wonder if you were monitoring in some way?

(Mr Morley) In relation to cattle movement and the spread of the disease I really do not think that there is a very high risk in relation to the autumn movement package because that is very tightly controlled. There is a very severe risk at the moment of the disease being spread by cattle-to-cattle transmission, in fact we have some proposals we put to the TB Forum about how we intend to deal with that.

(Ms Eades) I just wanted to say the autumn package relaxed movements of controls on cattle in very circumscribed fashion. Cattle have always been allowed to move out of TB restricted herds direct to slaughter, in fact movement is licensed. The autumn package allowed for movements of animals which have passed the TB test, we have to remember they have just been herd tested and they have a clear test on the individual animal and it is permitted that the movement to slaughter should be via alternative premises, but it is still a movement to slaughter not a movement to another herd. At the same time we announced that we were going to be placing additional movement restrictions on herds which are consider to be high risk herds, that is herds with overdue tests, where the TB status of the herd is uncertain. Although it has been represented as being a relaxation of movement control it was a balanced measure that there were circumstances where the risk is extremely low, and in those cases movement under license will be permitted. There are other movements where the risk is considered to be very high and in that case the controls were tightened. We felt that that was a proper approach.

173. Minister, you mentioned in your previous answer the words "TB Forum", why was it necessary to set up at separate industry group?

(Mr Morley) The industry group are part of the autumn package and really that is to oversee the points I was making about management issues. You have the scientific issues which are quite rightly overseen by the Forum, which is looking at the science and the work and the research and development we are doing. The autumn package is really designed to take some pressure off farmers who are in restricted areas, as Sue says, in a very careful way, it is a very restricted way and it is to look at the management of that.

Mr Jack: Thank you.

Chairman

174. The ISG were a little exercised about the lack of consultation with them prior to the introduction of the autumn package, again Mike has picked up the relationship to the TB Forum, can you just explain what process of consultation happens with both the ISG and the TB Forum over issues which are wider than bovine TB but obviously have an important impact on the effectiveness of the measures we have been talking about?

(Ms Eades) In consultation with the ISG there was a paper describing I think the element of the autumn package which particularly concerned them, the gamma interferon pilot, which they would like to see extended to cover other objectives than the limited objectives which the pilot that is currently in place has. They were consulted I think in June and July before the autumn package was ---

175. They said 3 weeks.

(Ms Eades) It was not 3 weeks before the announcement. The gamma interferon pilot was introduced ultimately in October. They had seen the first draft of protocol for carrying out the gamma interferon pilot either in June or July and they criticised the protocol. which was amended accordingly. The revised protocol, which took account of their original comments, was then shown to them again and we had comments in writing from them that they considered it to be much improved compared to the first version they had seen. That all took place before the announcement of the autumn package, which was in September.

Ms Atherton

176. We all know, and it is all pretty depressing the situation on vaccination, and I understand the Chief Veterinary Officer has started negotiations with international trading partners about allowing vaccination and the changing of the rules. Can you tell us something about that?

(Mr Morley) In a broader sense of vaccination policy, is that what you mean?

177. Yes.

(Mr Morley) I think what was referred to there was what we were talking about in our discussions generally with bodies like OIE and the European Union, the current rules that apply when you vaccinate animals and the retention periods of the sale of meat and issues like that. I am not sure it is connected with these particular issues. it is to do with the FMD discussions. One of the problems with the whole argument on FMD vaccination was that under the old rules if you vaccinated then you were not allowed to resume trade for 12 months. I am glad to say that has been reduced to 6 months but there are still issues there in relation to the whole use of vaccines as a general policy.

178. Can you tell us something about the encouragement that the Government may or may not be giving to private companies to develop a vaccine? It has been suggested that could be a possible route for a private company.

(Mr Morley) We are happy to encourage private companies but it depends on what that involves. Private companies will develop vaccines if they think there is a market for them. Clearly there is a market here, it is a big issue for us in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and also New Zealand. Even for a lot of big pharmaceutical companies that might not be a market that would induce them to devote a great deal of resources to vaccine development, and that is one of the reasons why we are doing a great deal of work ourselves on vaccine development through our own laboratories and also in conjunction with other institutions and other countries. The Genome Project is funded by DEFRA in collaboration with others. We are also collaborating with the Republic of Ireland on the use of BCG vaccines on wildlife.

179. You would be prepared to talk with private companies about some funding mechanisms if it was to encourage them?

(Mr Morley) We are open-minded. I am sure there would be a price to this and we would have to examine what that price would be.

(Mr Cawthorne) The starting point is having a candidate vaccine. It is not that the commercial company cannot develop the candidate vaccine it is actually getting to the ground floor and having a vaccine candidate that you know will work if you know what you want it to do. That is a problem which is a global problem, it is not as though it is DEFRAs problem or an individual company's it is identifying a vaccine candidate you think will work.

Mr Jack

180. You just said something very interesting, you said with a vaccine it is important to know what you wanted to do. I thought it is blindingly obvious what you want the vaccine to do, which is to stop the spread of the disease. Can you explain to me in lay terms, what are the problems which are currently preventing the development? Is there a scientific difficulty there which has to be overcome before you can develop a vaccine? Are there umpteen different strains of bovine TB and is it a question like the flu of picking the right vaccine for the right strain? What is the barrier?

(Mr Cawthorne) I am not an expert in this particular field but I think the answer would be that the immunological reaction to tuberculosis is very, very complex, it changes over a period of time. It is not like FMD where you inoculate the animal with a vaccine, it produces anti-bodies and anti-bodies kill off the virus end of story. This is a chronic disease which has a very complex immunological reaction and the problem people have encountered is trying to identify something which will produce a solid immunity for this very chronic type of disease. That is the fundamental problem. People have used attenuated vaccines which are live vaccines which do not generate disease, which is basically BCG, and that has had some success, even in the human population. There is a suggestion that it might work in badgers but where it has been tried in cattle I believe it has not been very successful. Types of vaccine can be live vaccine in the sense that they multiply within the body but do not create the disease that you want to. Other vaccines take bits of the organism and if you innoculate them they would generate antibodies and react with the organism and protect the animal against that. The point I made about, do you know what it wants to do, well this becomes a little more complex. You can have a vaccine which maybe knocks out accretion, you might want that type of protection in a badger, but there again you might want protection against a clinical disease. That is protection against clinical disease but it may not protect against infection, though the immune system may throw it over, for example with foot and mouth disease vaccinated animals can still become infected, albeit the body throws off the infection very quickly. You need to identify what you are trying to achieve. What you want to do is just protect. The other complex area as far as cattle are concerned is your only means of controlling the disease is to identify an infected animal and remove it. You cannot afford to have a vaccine which supposedly protects the animal against disease but gives a positive reaction to the tuberculosis test because that is the only means you have. In conjunction with the vaccine you need an additional test which allows you to tell that the response you are picking up in the tuberculin test is a response to the vaccine not a response to the actual infection. These discriminatory tests are used in classical swine fever and usually what you end up is manipulating the organism so that the vaccine contains or does not contain certain proteins which you can measure for when you are testing a live animal and say that, yes, that is a vaccinal response, it is not a live animal response. That is important because the tuberculin test still forms the basis of the international accepted means of underpinning quality standards for cattle in terms of trade. Your starting point becomes a little complex in defining just what you are wanting.

(Mr Morley) We have submitted an authorisation pack of vaccine to the Committee which goes through the various steps. This is not based on a genetically modified organism, that brings in additional complications.

Chairman: I am sure we will study that in due course.

Mr Wiggin

181. What progress are you making on the vaccine that you are actually funding, the actual research you are funding and also the progress on the gamma interferon test? You are conducting the right sort of research it seems but so far we do not know how you are getting on?

(Mr Morley) On the gamma interferon I think it is a bit early to say because we are still recruiting people into the pilot test area.

182. It is not going very well, is it?

(Mr Morley) The recruitment is a bit slow, that is true. I do not know the reasons why people are reluctant. I think there is a concern about what it might show up on people's herds and that produces a bit of resistance for people to join in on the trial. On the vaccine the most important breakthrough has been the identification of the genome, that ultimately will be quite helpful in relation to vaccine development. At the moment there is no sign of a breakthrough and it is very difficult to predict how long it will be, it is certainly going to be measured in years in terms of production of the vaccine. I know that Time Bennett may have said that as long as he can remember it has always been said 10 years. That applies to me as well, as long as we are debating the whole issue of vaccine it is 10 years, it is always 10 years from whatever the point of time you are in. I think that genome breakthrough is enormously helpful.

183. Will you ever have plans to try the BCG test on cattle, perhaps only in hot spots?

(Mr Morley) On cattle?

184. Yes.

(Mr Morley) There have been trials in BCG and as Richard said they have not been terribly successful. You also have the problem that if you use BCG on cattle you will get a reaction from the test. What we do not have is a test that can distinguish between a cattle which has been vaccinated and a cattle which has TB.

Chairman: Can we go on to TB99 and the RTA survey.

Mr Wiggin

185. On this TB99, why has DEFRA found it difficult to ensure that the state veterinary service is properly resourced for the TB99 questionnaire and the Road Traffic Act Survey?

(Mr Morley) I think the answer is they are both very time and resource consuming. It is fair to say as part of recovering from FMD it has been difficult to allocate the resources to those two areas because of demands on our State veterinary service. As you will be aware, Chairman, we have actually put the Road Traffic Survey into the hands of the Central Science Laboratory and that has made big progress. We have also brought in ADAS to speed up TB99. I think you will find that we have made rapid progress very recently in terms of dealing with those issues by bringing in more resources because basically the SVS could not cope.

Mr Wiggin: It is quite a complicated form and that is why so few have been filled out. Have you had any discussions with the ISG about the form?

Chairman

186. The NFU were very critical of the form in their evidence.

(Mr Morley) The more complex they are the more information you get and the more information you get the more valuable they are I think.

Mr Wiggin

187. As long as you get the information!

(Ms Eades) The ISG are hoping to do an interim analysis on the TB99 data when they have sufficient completed forms for analysis, and we hope to be at that stage very soon. One of the things that interim analysis will do is to look again at the design of the form to see if it can be simplified, of course it is always possible they may identify additional questions they want to address. It would be foolish really to try and change the design of the form before we have been able to do an interim analysis because there would be data we have been collecting which would be completely out valued.

Mr Wiggin: Thank you very much.

Chairman

188. Can we go on to the most controversial part, which is the culling. From what the ISG were saying to us they feel that they have made good progress in catching up on the proactive cull but they are somewhat behind in terms of reactive cull, although they anticipate catching up some time towards the end of next year. From your anticipation how much has this derailed the timetable?

(Mr Morley) In relation to the analysis of the timetable that is really one for the Independent Scientific Group, they have given their views, as they have given me their views, and they believe that will only set them back by a matter of months. They have had particular problems with the reactive cull for a variety of reasons, again going back to the foot and mouth and the diversion of our resources. I am pleased to say that turnaround on the reactive is now approximately 60 days. Again we have made very good progress on catching them and getting back on track on all these elements of trial.

189. Do you expect any interim results and would it be helpful to have interim results?

(Mr Morley) From talking to Professor Bourne I do not think we like to produce interim recommendations unless it is felt there is a scientific basis to do so.

190. What about outside the trial areas? We heard earlier about the strategy, to what extent are you actively discussing either timing the potential moratorium and making sure that farmers do not take any action off their own back or more particularly looking at whether it is working and making farmers at least feel they have some control over what they see as the cause or feature of TB. I know there are farmers in the farming community who think that overwhelmingly badgers cause TB.

(Mr Morley) I was disappointed by the current call for a badger cull outside the trial area, I cannot see a shred of evidence to base that on. Obviously we have to look at everything in connection with the spread of TB, and that includes wildlife reservoirs, which includes badgers, and we have to consider the whole idea of the Krebs trial to help us understand what that link is and if the link is there what role badgers play in relation to the spread and epidemiology, and that itself was controversial and difficult because we have to be responsible about addressing the whole issue of bovine TB and look at all possibilities that we have and continue to support it. I think to start culling badgers outside the trial areas there would have to be very, very clear justification for that. I do not see that justification at the present time. I do not see the scientific case for it. I do not see the practical case for it. In some ways it seems based on folklore and we have to do better than that in relation to combatting disease. I am not afraid, Chairman, to duck from difficult and potentially unpopular decisions, I have to make a lot of them in my role.

191. We know only too well.

(Mr Morley) I would need some basis and some evidence to do that. I am not in the game of agreeing to a culling trial outside the trial areas simply because it would be a demonstration to farmers that something was being done or whether or not there was justification for that because in the best case it would be a diversion of resources, time and staff and in the worse case it would simply be a placebo for farmers. I am not prepared to take that kind of action unless there is a case for it. In fact you are going backwards in the sense of going back to a policy which has been in place for over 20 years and has not exactly stopped the spread or the increase of bovine TB, it is not as if you are invited to go back to a policy which was a huge success. Therefore I would really have to have some very strong grounds to do that. As far as I can see those grounds are not there at the present time.

192. What about other wildlife reservoirs? One of the weaknesses of Krebs is, "It is the badgers what've done it, let us find out for good and bad how much they have done it". What about all of the other supposed links, because that is a potential weakness?

(Mr Morley) My understanding is that examination is taking place into deer, which are known to be carriers, and also farmyard cats and dogs, although the incidents of infection is extremely rare and the incidents of infection in deer is also very low. They are examined as well.

Mr Breed

193. The last time husbandry came before the Agriculture Committee for investigation there was a suggestion there was quite a few husbandry linked projects which were going to take place and going to be started, however then foot and mouth came along and that delayed some and it also gave a different prospective as to how the whole issue of husbandry, biosecurity and everything else was going to be implemented. Can you tell us, how is this message now going to be reinforced? What sort of projects are still valid? How are you going to do that? How is this whole area of husbandry and biosecurity going to be reinforced?

(Mr Morley) First of all, it is worth pointing out there have been a number of circulars to farmers about the whole issues of biosecurity and in particular in relation to bovine TB. Secondly, the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, of which I am very glad to say we have had very positive engagement from the livestock industry, is going to address that in a total approach, of which, of course, there is an issue of biosecurity and bovine TB, but there are wider issues of biosecurity, and that is one of a number of issues that we want to address in more detail as part of our Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The draft principles have been launched and we are currently in the process of consultation on that, with the idea of bringing forward more detailed proposals towards the end of the year.

(Ms Eades) I was really going to say we are having an interim Animal Health and Welfare Strategy this summer. The consultation document has clearly identified questions that need to be addressed. Taking forward a partnership approach in tackling animal health and welfare problems is called an animal health strategy because we recognise that we need to focus on health. There have been times in the past when we have been too wrapped up in the disease issues but the promotion of good health and measures which farmers can take to maintain the health of their herds is something that we are very much aware of and want to improve our performance on, and it would be done in that form.

194. Do you have any real evidence that this broadly based strategy which is going to encompass all sorts of thing is going to bear down very significantly on bovine TB?

(Ms Eades) We do have evidence. We are beginning to analyse the results of studies that we have been doing on herds which have been restocked after foot and mouth disease. Foot and mouth disease was a dreadful disease but it has really given us an opportunity to look at the effect which biosecurity measures have in terms of protecting herds. To be frank, the initial results from that study show, first of all, that biosecurity measures were not taken despite the advice that was provided to farmers. Secondly, they lead us to believe that we really need to do more. If the current means of providing advice to farmers are not meeting the target that is the difficulty that we have. We need to find other ways of getting the message across, that is going to be a very difficult subject for us to tackle. We need to be a bit more free thinking. Before we have tended to produce just another biosecurity leaflet but that is not the answer to the problem.

195. The fact is that the best of farmers are obviously really geared up to this because they know it is their livelihood which is threatened but there is a tail, I do not know how long big a tail, who do not care a toss about biosecurity. If sanctions will not work maybe incentives will. The whole point about the debate on licensing was that presumably we were going to pay people who do the job well, as indeed happens in any other industry, to make them feel that it is worth their while and presumably we could then deal with this tail in an effective way so that we do not have these continual threats of animal welfare breakdown or animal health breakdown. What is the view on this now?

(Mr Morley) I think that is right, Chairman. It is like any industry, you obviously get good and bad. The majority are people who it is in their interest to have high health standards but there is a minority, who range from poor husbandry to basic illegal activity. It is also a problem that there does seem to be a lack of questioning upon on the health history of cattle in particular which are brought in. That does not really seem to have established itself in the way that we had hoped, particularly given the guidance that we issued from the Department.

Mr Wiggin

196. One of the problems that farmers complain about is they cannot get the cattle tested. In an ideal world every time you bought a cow or any sort of bovine you would have a test done before you bought it but they cannot get those tests done. One farmer in my constituency has put an electric fence round his whole farm to stop the badgers taking the maize. If you start to insist on bovine TB being a criteria for deciding whether a farmer is good or bad then you will see a wholesale slaughter of badgers, because that is what they believe is causing the disease. They are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I urge you not to go down that road but to consider other ways of convincing farmers if biosecurity will help how it will help rather than take a punishing line with them.

(Mr Morley) Testing should not be seen as punishing. We have a problem at the present time and I think testing is part of the solution to it. I do not think it is the only solution, that is why, as I said earlier on, I do not think we should be trapped into thinking there is one magic answer to the whole problem of bovine TB, the answer is a combination of things we have to look at. In areas where there is widespread TB I think it makes common sense to have testing before animals are moved on. I was talking to some dairy farmers from Cheshire recently who were keen on this idea. They were talking to me about the idea of isolating cattle coming in and testing it, which is certainly worthy of consideration, but it is probably better to do the testing before the animal moves, that is the more logical way of doing it. I do not disagree there can be difficulties in arranging the test because of the veterinary resource, that is true. That is why I come back to the point that one of the things we are exploring is the idea of veterinary technicians, possibly working under veterinary supervision, which would dramatically speed up the whole issue of testing. It is one of the aspects that we want to explore.

(Mr Cawthorne) I think it is easy to get seduced on biosecurity looking purely at TB. There are many issues on biosecurity which cut across all animal diseases, disinfectants, holding animals in isolation before they join the main herd, etc, etc. Those are things that will work for TB and they will work for other diseases. On the issue of the difficulties of getting animals tested, fine, there may be that problem when there is this awful backlog but equally farmers can take the trouble to look at the quality, if you like, of the animal that is coming to them in terms of searching questions about the testing history of the farm and where the farm is located. The purchaser can set out to impose some form of quality control on the livestock that he is introducing into the system. There are things which the farmer will have difficulty controlling because TB hinges round the policy of test and remove, that is a fact of life. The badger issue is a function on particular farmers, no one is denying that. I do not think we should look at biosecurity solely in terms of TB control. Biosecurity in the sense of the animal health strategy is an across-the-board attempt to raise biosecurity on animal health standards on farms as a whole and many of those will aid in the control of tuberculosis.

197. In line with what you were saying about pre-purchase testing, a lot of the cases in my constituency are from closed herds. Everyone would appreciate pre-purchase testing but who would pay for that?

(Mr Morley) It would be the farmer's responsibility.

198. Are we complying with EU TB testing regulations at the moment? What measures are in place to ensure that we do so?

(Mr Morley) We are certainly complying with the testing regulations. There has been the backlog issue but we are getting on top of that.

(Mr Cawthorne) We carry out tests as required under EU legislation. We impose the post testing regime which is required when animals show up positive. In that sense we do comply with the EU requirements. We are not testing in any way different to what is required in the EU.

199. Do you think when all the strands of the different research are concluded - it is highly unlikely they all conclude at the same time - you will be expected to put a policy together? How do you think you will manage to do that?

(Mr Morley) We have to put a policy together, we have to deal with the current issue as we are faced with at the present time. We are trying to adapt our policies, and the autumn announcement is an example of that. The proposals that we have put to the TB Forum includes their capital movement issues, test frequencies to be reassessed, additional controls according to the zone and the individual herd health history, and also looking at measures to include delivery of a TB control programme and address the shortage of veterinary resources. That is part of the strategy that we are putting in place to deal with that. Of course we are waiting for the recommendations from the Independent Scientific Group which will be designed to guide us in how we direct strategies for the future.

Mr Jack

200. You are quite right when you countenance that this problem has been round for a long time. You also said a little while ago in your evidence not to think matters are spiralling out of control. Whilst it is containable and it has not spiralled out of control I could get the impression you are quite happy to be like the organ grinder and turn the handle quite slowly, is there a point at which the number of cases occurring means that there has to be a step-change in DEFRA's policy and reaction to it?

(Mr Morley) I understand the point you are making. What we are concerned about is policies which are effective. The current situation is a matter of concern, I would not want you to think we are complacent about where we are with bovine TB, it still only effects a small minority of the UK herd but it has spread and increased and these are issues of concern to us. We do want to put in place a strategy that ideally would lead to eradication. I do not think we want to see a policy that would be designed to live with bovine TB, all our energies and a great deal of resources are currently directed towards ways of trying to find ways to eradicate diseases.

201. What are you currently spending on dealing with the eradication of this disease?

(Mr Morley) Probably between 6O million and 70 million currently.

202. How much in compensation pay?

(Mr Morley) Roundabout 24 million. It is unusual year because we have a two year gap basically.

203. You are looking at an annual spend of about 20 million on compensation, is that the order of magnitude?

(Mr Morley) 2002 is an unusual year because you have a two year gap. On compensation it is about £31.7 million in 2002. .

204. To put it into context, compared with BSE and compared with FMD this is very small beer really, is it not?

(Mr Morley) Compared to those major outbreaks it is true it is a fraction of what they cost but these are still significant sums of money by any assessment. I would rather not be spending £73 million a year, which is what the total will be for 2002, on FMD. There are lots of other things I would like to spend that money on. The sooner that we can get the disease under control the better that that will be.

205. It is not going to be like varroa where every year you draw a different line on map and say, "This is the new varroa-free area", the nasty little varroa mites leap over and populate another area and eventually you end up with no varroa-free zone. At the moment there are some parts of the country where, thankfully, we have not had outbreaks, it is gradually creeping in and people are frightened about it.

(Mr Morley) Varroa is a very difficult issue to contain, as you well know.

206. Indeed.

(Mr Morley) TB is also very difficult but we do not want to be in that situation. We want to fight back the outbreaks and move to a situation of eradication. We are prepared to commit substantial sums of money to finding ways to do that, as indeed we are.

Mr Wiggin

207. Given the statistics do show what we are all feeling in our constituencies, that the number of cases is increasing dramatically, what hope can we tell our constituents about?

(Mr Morley) I think it is important to explain where we are with the testing and the statistics. We are doing much more testing this year than we generally would. I think we have done about 20 per cent more testing. We are finding more breakdowns within a herd because of the delays and the backlog, and then there has been more spread within herds so therefore there is more backlog, so you are therefore getting more reactors and therefore you are culling more animals and paying more compensation. This is all a direct result of a delay in some cases of up to 18 months because of foot and mouth. I believe this will be bought on a more even keel. I think what we will see is that the spread will probably still increase but not quite so dramatically as people feel at the moment because of these figures which look really very significant but are based on two years' gap in some cases. I think it has to be put in perspective. The other issue is to reassure farmers that we are committing everything we can on vaccine development, on disease control and the Krebs experiment. We do not rule out that there may well be a link with wildlife, which is badgers, and disease, but what we do not understand is what that link is or how significant it is or the best way of dealing with it. That is the whole idea of the experiments and we need that information to guide us on the best way. We are prepared to deal with some of the practical problems which farmers face, as we demonstrated with our autumn announcement, and the proposals we put to the ISG are based on our discussions with the industry in terms of how we can deal with it.

Chairman

208. Thank you, as always, Minister, and thank you to your team as well. Two good pieces of news: one, you do not have to give any more evidence and we have to go away and write the report, and, second, if the Business Statement is to be believed you do not have to give evidence on flooding this week so you can delay that for a few weeks. So it is a much easier week than you originally thought.

(Mr Morley) Thank you, Chairman. Good news all round.

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

Badgers and TB in Cattle: the view of a dairy farmer.
(Filed 27 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

The Krebs Report and the Independent Scientific Review Group.
(Filed 27 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

Irvine, W. J. (2003). Just how bad is the TB problem in UK Cattle?
(Filed 25 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

Incidents of TB in Cattle in Scotland, 1995-2002.
(Filed 26 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

Cultybraggan Farm Diary (2002). Routine testing of Cultybraggan cattle for Tuberculosis and Brucellosis, November 2002: All results negative.
(Filed 26 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).