TUESDAY 16 MARCH 1999

MR JEFF ROOKER

  720. So, the expression "widespread badger culling", you mean nationwide rather than widespread culling in areas where there is a particular problem, in other words, in, say, North Devon or in South Gloucestershire?
  (Mr Rooker) No, it is only because, the extravagant language used by opponents and proponents of what might be required. I do not want to kill any badgers, I do not want that responsibility; on the other hand, we have got the cattle health issue to look after, we have not got a lot of people campaigning for cattle health, by the way, there is a separate issue, except, obviously, the farmers. Our view is that it may be, and I do not know, in hot spot areas, or part of counties, we cannot say, widespread; the way that is put across when someone has got a camera in front of their face, it is giving the impression that we are going to wipe out all the badgers, well we are not. It could be, in very tiny, selected hot spot areas, depending, as I say, maybe, on the time of the year, the terrain, the badger density, and other factors, that indicate to us that doing that can control bovine TB. That, as a policy objective, is laudable, if it is scientifically valid; that does not put the badger under threat. We could end up, by the way, removing a lot fewer badgers that way than under the non-scientific badger removal operations when we took out 2,700 in 1997.

  721. Just going back, Minister, briefly, to the issue we were discussing about communication between the vets and your Ministry at the RCVS and the BVA, the actual vets in the field, the Ministry, there was quite a lot of criticism from them about a lack of communication. One way of addressing that may be to include someone with direct veterinary experience on the Expert Group; has that been given any consideration?
  (Mr Rooker) I think it would have been when it was set up. The Expert Group was set up to do a different job, with respect, and while they have got, I think he is an add-on, as an economic adviser, I am not so sure whether—what I do not want to do is to replicate a mini-MAFF inside the Expert Group, I do not think that would provide us with the independent scientific evidence. But, I repeat, if problems have been identified, not so much perceived but problems identified, I will make sure they are addressed.

  722. But you do rule out putting a vet on the Expert Group?
  (Mr Rooker) I have had no advice to that effect, and I suspect when we set up the Expert Group we had probably considered that, and because of the nature of the tasks the Expert Group has to do we said we did not need that, because we do not want to replicate MAFF inside the Expert Group.

  723. We have got four or five minutes, and just a few quick things, just to rattle off, I think. I think you may be getting some extra inspiration, if you want to use it or not?
  (Mr Rooker) I have just been reminded, of course, that Professor Bourne is a vet.

  724. Yes, that is fair comment, and I think you will wish to have that put on the record. To talk about compensation, if we can, briefly. There was a general welcome for the increase in compensation to the full market value of the animal, I think that was genuinely accepted, but you acknowledge still the consequential loss is still huge for farmers, and that does not cover it. We examined the possibility of insurance, at some length, last week, and it looked as if those who needed it could not get it, as is always the case in the world of insurance. Are you looking at any possible extension of the compensation arrangements?
  (Mr Rooker) No. I take the view about insurance, to be honest, I used to get problems in my constituency, at one time, of red-lining, of insurance companies not offering insurance to certain people; that was tackled at a national level for people's housing, and things like that. This is not an issue that I have spent any time on, I freely admit that, with insurance companies. It would be a partial solution. It is used in some countries, by the way, we have had a look at two, I think it is, Ireland and Spain, I think, as I recall, from my notes, and insurance plays a role in one of them. But we are not planning, you see, by offering 100 per cent compensation of the market value of the animal, in a way, I do not know what that is going to take, I do not know where the outbreaks are going to be, I do not know if a prize animal is going to go down. It was news to me, back in 1996, I will not bore you with the details, when I was involved in by-election campaigning in South East Staffs, we went to a farm where there was an animal, a cow, worth over £80,000. I did not know cows could be worth that much money, a double champion. I would just hope one of those did not go down, because the most we have paid at the moment is £11,600; now that is very substantial, the vast majority are under £1,000. But that, I can assure you, under the previous policy, that animal, worth that much, that farmer would not have been compensated for that animal under the previous policy.

  725. I respect your wish not to start paying out large quantities of subsidy for better husbandry techniques, but perhaps you could link increased compensation levels to improved husbandry techniques, on farms, as an incentive?
  (Mr Rooker) I have to say, that is not in the foreseeable future, within my remit, to be honest, to do that.

  726. Just a couple of quick ones. One is, what do you think about MAFF's response to the suggestion that cattle passports should include the date of the most recent TB test, because, of course, obviously, cattle moving such a lot, and you might actually move your cow in and it has not been tested for two years, so actually it is going to go down?
  (Mr Rooker) Yes, absolutely. I have to say, there are a lot of seductive issues being put forward. It may be, in the future, in the future, that the cattle passport can be used for this kind of innovation, because saying when an animal has been tested, of course, may not tell you what its current status is, which is a difficulty.

  727. It would give you a closer idea, would it not, whether it is four years ago?
  (Mr Rooker) Maybe, but I have to say this, it is a separate issue, but in the annals of Whitehall information technology projects, I am claiming the Cattle Movement Service is a success; it is early days still, at the moment, but a success.

  728. That is a modest claim.
  (Mr Rooker) No, but it is a success in the annals of Whitehall. My experience on the Public Accounts Committee taught me a lesson about IT projects. And one of the factors in that success, as I laid on from the very beginning, when I gave them three previous Public Accounts Committee reports since 1997, avoid the mistakes, and one of the big mistakes is add-ons; there are always people saying "You've got this system designed for this, but you could just modify it a bit and you could do this other thing as well", and, before you know it—

  729. Rather like the TB49 form?
  (Mr Rooker) Your original objective is lost sight of. Now, as I am saying, for the future, obviously, it is a consideration, but in these very early days of the Cattle Movement Service I could not possibly contemplate that.

  730. What about the NFU asking for more frequent testing, because this could help with the control of the spread of the disease?
  (Mr Rooker) If the NFU wish to advise farmers to have voluntary testing, which, of course, they would pay for, in certain areas, their advice, that is fine. We have got a testing regime that the Experts and the Chief Vet explained, which is governed by factors that he set out. We have no plans, as I say, going back to the answer I gave to David Drew, we are having a look at, as an aspect, simply because cattle whizz round this country in a way that just is unbelievable, they are bought and sold off farms, it is amazing. Now I am not saying that is a problem, but it is fairly unique, I am told; in other countries, it does not quite work the way it works here.

  731. And it causes some stress, and TB comes from stress?
  (Mr Rooker) I am sure it does, and if I were a farmer, buying cattle from an area where there was known to be, you know, you would think to yourself "Well I want to check that out beforehand".

  732. You do, when you buy a car, do you not?
  (Mr Rooker) And I would have it MOT tested, as you say, or ask the farmer who is selling it to get it tested; that, to me, seems commonsense, to be honest, bearing in mind that I might not be able to get insurance buying cattle in from that kind of area.

  733. That is right; and, lastly, can I just ask you, what about the sort of suggestion that the whole thing has been actually a huge public relations disaster? Because the public at large think that the whole of this is nothing more than the Ministry just killing badgers, that the information has not been got over to farmers, farmers just think nothing is happening, there is no policy, wildlife groups say you are just eradicating badgers, the general public just cannot understand what it is about, that it has actually been a huge public relations disaster?
  (Mr Rooker) I am glad you have asked that question, because it gives me a chance to use this quote, in what I thought was an excellent article, and I played no part in this, I saw it in the Birmingham Post on Saturday, the 13th. It is the final paragraph, from a farmer in Herefordshire, who had previously been in Cornwall, and had TB both times, it is a Mr Hugh Black, now in Herefordshire; he said: "I would like the present trials to find a level of population density in the badgers that allows the badger to live with the cow. What you should try to bear in mind is TB is a very complex disease and any proposed solution is bound to be complex also. If people talk to you in simplistic terms, they are probably talking rubbish." Now I could not have put it any better myself. The people who want to say PR disaster, all these other expletives, if you like, treating it as a very simple operation, are not in the real world; this is an incredibly complicated issue and it does no service to farmers, it does no service to wildlife as well, which we share this planet with, to talk in simplistic terms when we are intent on trying to find a solution to what is a serious and complex problem.

  734. One of the issues that has complicated all this, of course, is the Bern Convention. What advice did you get from your officials about the Bern Convention, you probably will not tell us what advice you got, of course, but what account do you take of the Bern Convention, in formulating your strategy?
  (Mr Rooker) None, in formulating the strategy, absolutely none. As far as we were concerned, we were fully complying, and as far as we are concerned, by the way, fully complying with the Bern Convention, so it never arose as an issue in MAFF's discussions prior to the annunciation of the policy in August, or, indeed, when we started the triplet surveys and the culling trial in Putford, and we will put up a robust defence. It is astonishing, you look at the exercise of Bern, Professor Krebs's report was not offered to them, they had no background, written material; but, as far as we were concerned, we were, and as far as we are concerned, fully complying with the Bern Convention, so it was not an issue in our assessment of what we did regarding implementing Professor Krebs's report.

  735. If your defence did not succeed, that would be a public relations disaster for you, would it not?
  (Mr Rooker) Frankly, given the fact there was no evidence put, and no hearing took place of the reasons for what we were doing and why we were doing it, no scientific evidence was put forward, we can provide, and will provide, indeed, a very robust defence, no question about that.

  736. Well, robust, yes, that is a good word really, is it not?
  (Mr Rooker) Yes, well it will be robust.

  Chairman: Because this has been a characteristic, you might say, robust session from you, Minister, we have enjoyed it greatly. We are sorry we cannot accept the invitation to go to Woodchester Park, but the timescale of this inquiry does not permit that. We are grateful for that invitation though we will have to turn it down, I am afraid. But we have had a very good session with you, as I say, a robust, well informed, good humoured, characteristic performance. We are very grateful to you, Minister. Thank you very much indeed for your trouble.