TUESDAY 16 MARCH 1999

MR JEFF ROOKER

  680. Finally then, we heard criticism that there is insufficient ministerial commitment to the trial—
  (Mr Rooker) I beg your pardon?

  681. Would you like to reply to this?
  (Mr Rooker) Some say I am too gung-ho, others say, well, as you know, the argument is I am in the middle. The fact of the matter is, I sat there and looked in my diary, I have been at MAFF 97 weeks. I know, because I checked on Thursday, I have been involved in about 45 sessions with farmers, in my office, on the farm, with the scientists in my office, visiting the scientists out in the field, with ministerial colleagues, at meetings when sometimes all four Ministers have been present, discussing this issue, on about 45 occasions, I think it was up to 43 when I checked last Thursday. So there is ministerial commitment in MAFF to that. If you are seeking to imply we are operating MAFF policy and not Government policy, I can assure you, collective responsibility applies to all Ministers. This is a Government policy, cleared through the Whitehall machine, which is one of the reasons I have to, I fully admit, it is not my job to offer advice to the Prime Minister, but doing reshuffles in the last week of July, when Ministries are bringing forward decisions they want to announce before the recess starts, because it is important to announce to Parliament, which are of major importance to us in carrying programmes forward, can present difficulties. That is not a criticism of the Prime Minister. But it took 17 days, following the reshuffle, to get the clearance through Whitehall, because, obviously, look, Nick Brown walked in, he had to feel comfortable with the decisions. MAFF and the ministerial team there had gone through this, we had lived with this for a year, bringing forward Krebs and Bourne; it is unfair to say to someone "Well, here's the policy the last Minister left; just sign this off because we need to get on with it", that would be unfair to the new political boss of the Department. So we got this cleared through the normal Whitehall machine, it was actually cleared by the Deputy Prime Minister, while the Prime Minister was on holiday, with the final clearance, and I had a choice of two days on which to make the announcement, and I chose August 17, 17 or 18, it was one of those two days. So we proceeded as quickly as possible on that, with full support from my ministerial colleagues.

  Chairman: My Clerk advises me we cannot have a recommendation for the timing of a ministerial reshuffle as part of this report, but it is an interesting idea.

  682. I just see this as an outsider. I think the whole business is going to be very, very fraught indeed, because experiment bespeaks laboratory conditions and controllable variables, and you do not have that, you have got perverse human nature, you have got farmers who want to go out and kill them, you have got people who want to protect the badgers, you have got everybody interfering; the problems with this experiment are not scientific but practical. Now, in that kind of situation, given the fact that it has got off late and perhaps more shakily than you would have liked, are you not going to be in a very difficult position, (a) continuing it, in the face of practical problems; but (b) imagine the incidence of herd breakdowns increases rapidly, exponentially, or whatever, and there is then pressure to do something, and you will be saying "Hang on, we want the results of this experiment before we can say anything", it is going to be an impossible political situation?
  (Mr Rooker) I hope it will not be an impossible political situation. It is a very difficult political issue to deal with. I do not come to this as a scientist or expert, in any way, shape or form. You are quite right, everything is there that could go wrong—it is—because it is actually wildlife, given the points that Mark was making, about the questionnaire, although I think we have got it robust enough to do the analysis, we are operating on many fronts, with opposing groups. We have got farmers, occasionally there are farmers who do not want us to cull badgers, by the way, this is not unknown, we have got wildlife groups who will not accept there is a cause, others who do accept there is a cause, and therefore understand what we are doing, we have got people who are taking the law into their own hands, which could not only disrupt the trial but, of course, it is a criminal offence, in any event. We have to seek to climb each of those mountains, as they arrive, but plan for them in advance and not be surprised by them; part of this, trying to win goodwill from the farmers by changing the compensation arrangements, that is part of the policy. But, you are quite right, the disease is on the move, as you heard the Chief Vet say, and I freely admit that we watch very carefully where the counties are with the breakdowns. There is a northward spread, Derbyshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, I have been on to farms in Staffordshire, I understand the situation; 20 per cent of the milking herd is in the county of Cheshire. We even had Ministers, this is Ministers, not experts, by the way, discussing in late June, July, last year, can we put a cordon sanitaire around areas, what can we do, is this a practical possibility; nothing scientific would help us with that. That is not to say we are not looking at other issues, cattle to cattle transfer. As I answered David Drew recently, as Ministers, we are not seeking to interfere in the trial and we are not going to do anything that destroys the scientific validity, but if we can do other actions, such as encouraging farmers to do some voluntary testing, if they are going to buy and sell cattle, and that kind of thing, but we are waiting for further advice on that, that we have asked for, further and better particulars, as it were.

  683. I am not quite sure you have left any questions for Mr Todd to ask.
  (Mr Rooker) Sorry about that.

  684. The point is, you will persevere, even if you are under pressure to do something more drastic, persevere with the Krebs proposals, given the time involved?
  (Mr Rooker) Yes. First of all, doing anything more drastic would mean, by implication, going out and meeting the desires of farmers who think it is all 100 per cent down to the badger and nothing to do with them, nothing to do with any other kind of wildlife, "We don't need any science; just get on with it." First of all, we will not have the resources, the skilled and trained Wildlife staff, who are not gun-toting people, I might add, and the word "gun" did not appear in the advert, it is this kind of extreme language that causes me a problem, I have to say. They are dedicated to this trial. We will need the trained, skilled staff we have got to complete the trial area, there will not be any resources for the kind of thing that you might be envisaging. So I think we have got to stick with that, and we have got to spell it out to farmers. I understand the concerns of the loss, of economic damage to them, their compensation does not, in any way, compensate the total loss, but we are compensating now on the market value of the animal concerned.

  685. You are going on to the question I was going to ask you, as well. You are an enthusiast and we admire that, on this Committee.
  (Mr Rooker) No; enthusiastic in giving you information that this is not just about killing badgers, that is the central point that I need to get across, if I can.

  Chairman: I am going to bring in Mr Todd, if he thinks he has got anything left to ask.

  686. Yes, thank you, I think I have. Can I take you back to the answer that you gave to David Drew, who is with us now, earlier this month, and you said there, to the question what you would do in areas that are outside the cull area at the moment: "We are willing to consider additional action which could usefully complement existing measures. Among the ideas being considered at present are more rapid responses to TB incidents, more comprehensive local testing, local badger culling outside the trial areas, and better advice to farmers on protecting the health status of cattle herds." How do you square that, and particularly the phrase that I have highlighted, which is "local badger culling outside the trial areas", with the need to preserve the experiment as is?
  (Mr Rooker) I square it by saying, we would only do that, we would only do any of those points I mentioned, in answer to David, if it does not interfere with the validity of the trial, and we had got the resources; and the implication of that, of course, is that we are under advice from other sources that there are other things we could do, in addition to the trial, which does not interfere with the trial, which would give us some useful information. We are keeping an open door, we are not shutting out, by the way, in terms of scientific views, anyone who has got views to propose, we will listen to them. But, at the end of the day, while we are prepared to listen and consider, seriously, any other views that are put and options of actions we could take, within the resources and trained staff that we have, we are not going to jump the gun and do anything, we will discuss it with both Professor Bourne and, if need be, Professor Krebs as well. The Government has got a policy on the use of scientific advice in policy-making, and I do not intend to fall foul of that, to be honest.

  687. I was just intrigued by the fact that there is reference to the possibility of local badger culling outside the trial areas, which, it would appear, since they would not be within a scientifically controlled experiment, would not be covered by the normal disciplines of the testing that has been authorised so far, and would imply a willingness to accept the view that the scientific evidence was not required to justify further badger culling. That would seem the logic of that answer?
  (Mr Rooker) It might do, but what I am saying in that answer is, I am prepared to consider these issues, but I am constrained, if you like, a self-imposed constraint that we have put on ourselves, that we are going to operate to the best scientific principles.

  688. So, very specifically, does that mean that you are constrained from taking that particular avenue, which is local badger culling outside the trial areas?
  (Mr Rooker) If I received advice from the scientists, Professor Bourne's group, our own scientists, and, indeed, maybe even Professor Krebs, if he wished to offer advice, because he certainly mentioned this when he came here, to the extent that these ideas that have been put to us are all useful and interesting but they would not have a scientific validity, or they would interfere with the robustness of the trial. Now, bearing in mind our own trial, we know with confidence it is robust, even though we are only cage-trapping, even though we have a closed season, we are confident enough that the information we get is robust. If I am told anything else that we do, or might consider doing, however seductive it might be, might interfere with that, then, frankly, I would not do it.

  689. Obviously, that particular proposal has been put, of additional badger culling.
  (Mr Rooker) Yes, it has.

  690. When are you likely to receive a response from those advisers as to whether that is an appropriate response?
  (Mr Rooker) I cannot say, but I would suspect before the end of the closed season.

  691. Right; and, the other range of policy options that are referred to there, when are you going to be in shape to put those in place, because, obviously, those outside the trial areas are anxious about how they deal with TB outbreaks and the possible link with badgers?
  (Mr Rooker) To get as rapid a response as possible, when a farmer has got a breakdown, is important, and I would like to think that we do that now but we are looking for ways to see if we can improve it. We have to get the experience, by the way, in the trial areas for the reactive strategy, because we have not really been able to put that into operation, the Putford was only the proactive area, to get the reactive element of the triplets when they get going, to make sure that we can react very quickly. In the past, it sometimes took MAFF seven or eight months before they did a badger removal operation after a TB breakdown; all kinds of things were happening on the land or with the animals in the meantime. So we have got work to do on there, to make sure that we have got staff, teams at the ready.

  692. So the timetable is before the end of the closed season?
  (Mr Rooker) Most certainly, I would demand the policy advice before the closed season, I am confident it will come to me before that because it will also include maybe advising farmers that maybe they ought to get some voluntary testing procedures under way, if they are buying and selling cattle.

  693. You mentioned that one of the constraints for not going for a Stephen Harris approach perhaps of tackling the outbreaks with a robust approach to culling badgers was lack of resources; what resources would you have available to tackle TB outbreaks outside the cull areas?
  (Mr Rooker) I have not really; when you say resources, basically, we are talking about the Wildlife Unit, the Expert Advisory Group, our own vets, they are all limited. As you have seen from the money that has been put into this, there is a considerable amount of public money extra being put into the overall policy, not just the culling trial, the overall policy; those resources were obtained under the Comprehensive Spending Review, and they are not going to increase.

  694. So there is nothing else really for farmers who are outside the cull area and who face a TB outbreak, other than the compensation?
  (Mr Rooker) No; other than increasing the compensation, other than the fact that we are trying to tackle this issue seriously to construct a policy, because, and I repeat this, the old policies did not work. If they had worked, we would not be here today; they did not work, they did not control bovine TB, they certainly did not eliminate it.

  695. What evaluation have you made of Stephen Harris' views on culling?
  (Mr Rooker) I have had several meetings with Professor Harris, the last one was when he met Nick Brown, the meeting lasted in excess of two hours, where we had already had initial correspondence and questions and answers. We have had further correspondence since then with him. Nick has written. I think the latest position is, as I recall, we put some more questions to him. As I say, we are prepared to consider people's views and options, there is no closed door; but, as I say, without repeating myself, there are those other constraints under which we are working as to any change of policy.

  696. Do you agree with Professor Krebs's comments, in his report, that the industry has not really engaged or taken any responsibility; one of the reasons why the policy has not worked, that is why we are all here today, is that they have not actually engaged and felt that they have a role to play?
  (Mr Rooker) When I said the policy has not worked, I was implying the fact that we have got the increase in TB, it does fluctuate but we have got this increase in the last few years, so, clearly, the previous policies did not work. It is very sporadic over the country, it varies, there are the hot spot areas. There are farmers in hot spot areas in the South West have not had TB, they have got badgers on the land; very difficult to be able to say with certainty exactly what they should be doing. Now that is not to say that I think Professor Krebs's criticism of the farming industry was not valid. I once met a farmer who said he could cope with a breakdown every four years; now, frankly, I think that is unacceptable. I am not prepared to go into details about that, but he said he could cope with a breakdown every four years; I think that is unacceptable. We cannot construct, in terms of being the House of Commons and Parliament, certainly not the Government, a policy based on that kind of approach. And, as I say, I am hoping we will have the new guidance for farmers certainly available before the end of the closed season; what we are trying to do, of course, is get it not just produced with the support of the NFU but a wider range of groups, to say to farmers "Look, here are some ideas, some policies, some practices, that we would advise that you follow", but, as I say, we are still working on that or we are hoping to get it published before the end of the closed season.

  697. But is not the problem that, if we are looking at the whole thing wider than just the cull of the badger, we have to look at the role of husbandry?
  (Mr Rooker) Yes.

  698. And, in the past, because of the way that the old TB49 form was constructed, there tended to be a preconceived idea that "I've got a herd breakdown, it's therefore down to the badger, therefore it's nothing to do with me, my husbandry practices, my stocking densities, I don't have to take any part in this, all we have to do is take out the badger"; and that, actually, MAFF has not in the past, and still now does not change that mindset?
  (Mr Rooker) I think that is unfair, I think that is very unfair on farmers, to be honest. A lot of them have thought hard and deep about this, as they know that it is spreading in parts of the country that hitherto had not had TB on a large scale, and farmers are taking, I think, cognisance of things they could do, and we need it done on a much broader scale and we need it done more systematically, I accept that. But the mindset that is still there, that I think is open to criticism, is I think what you heard last week, that when we give farmers advice on what to do on husbandry techniques they then say "Will you pay us to do it?", that is what you heard last week; that mindset, frankly, is very old policy, it is not New Labour Government policy, for a start. There is no way that there is compensation available for farmers to have good husbandry practices; that kind of mindset, that when MAFF says "We suggest you do something" and someone says "Well, we need a subsidy for that, or a supplement", sorry, but that is not going to happen in this case.

  699. Can we go on to the advice that MAFF does give, because we understand that the advice that we have got, and we have been sent a copy of this document, that it is under review and, at the moment, at this very crucial time, that actually a leaflet is not being distributed, and that the NFU told us that MAFF had produced an advisory leaflet on husbandry five years ago, but it had been withdrawn and not replaced, despite assurances that it would be. I wonder if you could clarify what is happening about advice to farmers, how they are getting it, and, having looked at this, as you say, some of it is very much basic commonsense, keep the feed stores and buildings closed to prevent badgers from getting in, it is almost so obvious as to not really take knowledge very far forward?
  (Mr Rooker) That is right, but that is some years old, and I just said we are working on guidance literature to go to farmers before the end of the closed season; that takes us into the end of April, it has got to be with farmers before then.