the future of ahvla services in wales · 2012-04-25 · hc 1660 published on 25 april 2012 by...

HC 1660 Published on 25 April 2012

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£ .00

House of Commons

Welsh Affairs Committee

The future of AHVLA services in Wales

Oral and written evidence

Volume I: Oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/welshcom

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 November and 29 November 2012

9

The Welsh Affairs Committee

The Welsh Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales).

Current membership

David T.C. Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) (Chair) Stuart Andrew MP (Conservative, Pudsey) Guto Bebb MP (Conservative, Aberconwy) Geraint Davies MP (Labour, Swansea West) Jonathan Edwards MP (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) Nia Griffith MP (Labour, Llanelli) Mrs Siân C. James MP (Labour, Swansea East) Susan Elan Jones MP (Labour, Clwyd South) Karen Lumley MP (Conservative, Redditch) Jessica Morden MP (Labour, Newport East) Mr Robin Walker MP (Conservative, Worcester) Mr Mark Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion) The following Members were members of the Committee during the Parliament: Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Glyn Davies MP (Conservative, Montgomeryshire) Owen Smith MP (Labour, Pontypridd)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/welshcom The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volumes. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee is Adrian Jenner (Clerk), Anwen Rees (Inquiry Manager), Lori Verwaerde (Senior Committee Assistant), Dabinder Rai (Committee Assistant), and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Welsh Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3264; and the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

The future of AHVLA services in Wales 5

Witnesses

Wednesday 23 November 2011 Page

Dr Hazel Wright, Senior Policy Officer, and Mr Derek Morgan, Chairman of the Hill Farming and Marginal Land Committee, Farmers’ Union of Wales, and Mr Stephen James, Deputy President, National Farmers’ Union of Wales (NFU Cymru)

Ev 1

Tuesday 29 November 2011

Geraldine O’Connell, National Secretary, Prospect, and Carl Padgett, President, British Veterinary Association

Ev 6

Rt Hon James Paice MP, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Catherine Brown, Chief Executive, AHVLA

Ev 11

List of written evidence

1 National Farmers’ Union Wales Ev 18

2 Farmers’ Union of Wales Ev 19

3 Prospect Ev 21

4 British Veterinary Association Ev 24

5 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 25

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/welshcom)

1 Dr Ruth Watkins Ev w1

2 Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM Ev w2

3 Milfeddygon ProStock Vets Ev w3

4 Simon Hart MP Ev w4

5 Biobest Laboratories Ltd Ev w4

6 Mr J Swift Ev w5

7 Mr C Williams Ev w5

8 Malcolm Gittings Ev w5

9 Welsh Government Ev w6

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:27] Job: 017884 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_o001_th_CORRECTED transcript 23 November 2011.xml

Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Welsh Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 23 November 2011

Members present:

David T. C. Davies (Chair)

Stuart AndrewGuto BebbGeraint Davies

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Dr Hazel Wright, Senior Policy Officer, and Mr Derek Morgan, Chairman of the Hill Farmingand Marginal Land Committee, Farmers’ Union of Wales, and Mr Stephen James, Deputy President, NationalFarmers’ Union of Wales (NFU Cymru), gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.Would you briefly introduce yourselves, and thenperhaps give us a quick introduction to the issue ofthese closures?Mr James: I am Stephen James. I am the deputypresident of NFU Cymru. I am a dairy farmer byprofession on the Carmarthen-Pembroke border.Dr Wright: I am Hazel Wright. I am the union seniorpolicy officer for the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I havean interest in disease biology because my PhD is inparasitology.Mr Morgan: I am Derek Morgan. I am chairman ofthe Hill Farming and Marginal Land Committee anda hill farmer from mid-Wales.

Q2 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We areslightly pressed for time as we have Questions to theWelsh Minister later this morning, so may I ask you—I do not mind which of you answers—to give a quicksynopsis of the problems that we are faced with?Mr James: We are talking about the closure of thelabs in Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. They talk aboutkeeping the post-mortem part of it, but we understandthat all of the lab testing will be moved somewherecentral. We question that, particularly as Carmarthenis in a very intense livestock area. If you are post-morteming something, it is best to test it when it isfresh as opposed to it having to be posted elsewhere.That is what we are defending. We expect a serviceand the service is there now; it is well used by localvets and farmers, and we do not want to lose it.

Q3 Jonathan Edwards: May I ask you to give us aquick idiot’s guide, as it were? If there is an incidenton a farm, such as a suspected outbreak of TB orwhatever, what is the time scale and the process ofhow the carcases or samples reach the lab, and whenwould you, as farmers, know that you had a problem?Mr James: With something like foot and mouth,which is notifiable, you would have a result within thefirst 24 hours because it is critical and has to bedelivered. A lot of the stuff going through there wouldbe many diseases that were not notifiable, such asleptospirosis and a variety of other diseases—including sheep diseases, which Derek hasexperience of.

Jonathan EdwardsJessica Morden

You would have a farm-specific problem, and youwould want to find out about it and treat it; you coulduse an antibiotic or perhaps a vaccine, but the decisionwould need to be made sooner rather than later. Forinstance, Derek and I have personal experience ofthere having been five abortions in 10 days. You thinkthat you have a major problem when you have thatmany, when a single one in six months is more usual.When you have five in 10 days, you would think thereis something drastically wrong here, but you don’tknow how to treat it or what to do. We sent one ofthe foetuses to be tested, and they found that it wascaused by a fungus or a mould growing in one of ourfeed mangers. At least we then knew what to do aboutit, whereas, if it had been leptospirosis or whatever,we would have needed to vaccinate sooner rather thanlater. That is the sort of stuff that they are doing for us.

Q4 Jonathan Edwards: I questioned the Minister onthis 24-hour issue, and he said that a 24-hour delaywould be unacceptable. Is there any way, under theproposals as envisaged, that you reckon they will beable to get the samples post-mortemed and tested inthe labs at the other centres and get the results backto you within 24 hours?Mr James: Obviously you can deliver things fromScrewfix overnight, but you would have to have arefrigerated service. If they close these labs, theywould have to have some sort of refrigerated deliveryservice to a central lab. That would be the least thatcould happen, as this material is best tested fresh.

Q5 Jonathan Edwards: Was the announcementabout discontinuing lab services in Carmarthen andAberystwyth totally unexpected by the unions, orwere you consulted beforehand?Dr Wright: It did not go out to consultation, so wehad no input whatsoever. My understanding is that itwas thought to be an internal reorganisation and thatconsultation was not needed. The union wouldobviously have welcomed consultation because, as faras we understand it, you cannot lose jobs and expectno loss of capacity. Because of the restructuring,Wales will be particularly hard-hit, given that all thetesting will be done elsewhere. Yes, we would havewelcomed consultation, but, no, there was not one.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:27] Job: 017884 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_o001_th_CORRECTED transcript 23 November 2011.xml

Ev 2 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence

23 November 2011 Dr Hazel Wright, Mr Derek Morgan and Mr Stephen James

Q6 Jonathan Edwards: Are you concerned that noimpact assessment was undertaken by the Departmentor the agency?Dr Wright: Absolutely, yes. You can report costsavings, and they are arbitrary at the moment, but, ifthose savings have to be met with an increase intesting elsewhere because of that loss of capacity, youwould have to question the value of the cost savings.You obviously would not be expecting that increasein costs; so you have to balance out the two.

Q7 Jonathan Edwards: My last question is to NFUCymru in particular. In your written evidence, youtold us that you had expressed concerns to theexecutive of the agency and that you subsequently metwith representatives of the agency. What reassurances,if any, did you receive from them as a result of thatmeeting?Mr James: We wrote to Catherine Brown, and sheresponded with a letter saying that the rumours in thenewspapers at the time were not strictly true.However, going forward, we understand that theywant to reduce the labs. Since then, we met MartinSharples and Simon Hall, the vets in charge at theAHVLA. They gave us examples of what happens inHolland, where there is a central lab and a refrigeratedservice to collect the material from around thecountry. Holland would be the size of Wales, I guess,but it is flat and it is easier to get a service, at least areliable service, which perhaps works better there. Inanswer to your earlier question, we understand thatthey report on that day. If they can create a service ofthat standard and that level, then you can accept thatit will perhaps be a better service than we have now.However, we would question whether it would beachievable in the UK; I assume that we would haveto have three or four centres to achieve the standardsthat they have in Holland.

Q8 Guto Bebb: It has been said that consolidatingthe services would provide a more efficient and expertservice to the farming community. Do you agree withthat statement?Mr James: It is difficult. It is one of those things thatyou are not quite sure of. It is easy to say it, but canthey deliver? Given the scale of the UK—I guess weinclude Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland—if they can provide a service similar to that of theDutch, then it may become more efficient, but wewould question that. We have spoken to the lab inCarmarthen; it will still be doing post-mortems, but itwould be sending material to central labs. Thequestion is whether it can keep that stuff fresh enoughto sample it properly when it reaches the lab. That isthe big question.

Q9 Chair: What about Dr Wright or Mr Morgan?Would you go along with that?Dr Wright: It depends on whether consolidatingservices would mean the loss of local expertise. Itdepends on whether the staff in a centralised servicehad the expertise that was available at the localcentres. In evidence, the FUW says that Aberystwythis a referral centre for parasitology; research anddevelopment work also goes on there. It is an

important centre, but, if you centralise it and peoplecannot relocate, there is the potential for it to be apoorer service. However, that would need to be seen.

Q10 Guto Bebb: We have been told that the agencyhas been instructed by Defra to reduce its spending byabout £8 million per year until 2015. If thelaboratories are not cut, where should the agency tryto make savings? Do you have any views on that?Dr Wright: It depends on whether you think thereshould be savings on issues such as food health andsafety. It is an important question. Potentially, savingscould be achieved by reducing some testing at all labsas opposed to reducing the labs in Aberystwyth by100%. That would be a big difference, because youwould still retain services in Wales and stop it beingvulnerable later to the closures of centres. There areways and means of reducing expenditure withouttaking it all away from Wales. That is an importantconsideration.Mr Morgan: As a farmer, I feel that we have twocentres of excellence in Wales—one in Carmarthenand one in Aberystwyth. I return to a point made bySteve about cattle. In Aberystwyth and Carmarthen,the capacity to take live sheep, slaughter them on siteand do the investigation is available. I know thatservice could still be available, but those samples willthen have to be sent away to England. I have heardthat in cases of abortion, which is serious in sheepflocks, you can take a live animal to get it tested andhave it back within 24 hours. You can then do yourremedial work to stop the disease. The feeling is thatwe have two centres of excellence in Wales, and weneed to keep them. Once you start making cuts, wherewill they stop? That is the question.Mr James: You talk about cost savings, but you mustbe well aware that foot and mouth cost in excess of£8 billion in 2001. Quick diagnosis of something likethat may make a big difference because you limit thespread in the first place, and that limits the overallcost.Disease is a peculiar thing. You can never decidetoday what disease levels will be over the next 10years because you do not know. We are concernedabout new and emerging diseases as well because ofborder controls. I have been to Australia and othercountries where you have to stand in a line. If theyknow that you have come from a farm, you are almostcarrying a banner saying, “Watch this fellow”,whereas when you come back into Heathrow, no onegives a damn. That concerns us quite a bit. There arediseases that we may not even have heard of in thiscountry at the moment, and there is a risk of that. Iknow this is a different debate, but those emergingdiseases concern us, which is why the facility must beretained in some shape or form. That is what we aresaying and that is what we believe.

Q11 Geraint Davies: Following on from that point,I am concerned about the speed of transmission ofsignificant diseases, particularly those such as foot andmouth, and the cost of £8 billion versus the costsavings. My first question is about the topography ofWales. We all know that it takes a long time to get toAberystwyth or Carmarthen, but how much extra time

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:27] Job: 017884 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_o001_th_CORRECTED transcript 23 November 2011.xml



will it take for the results to come back to the farm ifthe tests are taken out of Wales?Mr James: I would say that they would struggle to doit within 24 hours. I shall give an example. At themoment, the gamma interferon blood tests for TB aredone at Weybridge. There is no facility in Wales fordoing that test. They have to get the blood samplesthere within 24 hours for the test to be effective. Itdoes not work if the sample is older than 24 hours,and there are many failures. Only 50,000 gammainterferon tests are done a year because it is such achallenge. There is no doubt that one of the limitationsis the fact that they can carry out that test in only onecentral lab. That highlights the issue. You can imaginetaking blood samples on a farm, especially if you havea 500-cow herd or a flock of 1,000 sheep. It takes along time to accumulate the samples in the first place,and you then have to transport them to a central lab.So 24 hours from taking the first sample is a majorchallenge.

Q12 Geraint Davies: You said earlier that, if youhave to take the sample a long distance and it is nolonger fresh, the test result may be unreliable.Mr James: That is right, yes.

Q13 Geraint Davies: With an outbreak of foot andmouth, there is a risk that, because of the distance andthe time involved, the test would be unreliable, thatwe would have to wait for another test to come back,and that, too, could be unreliable, and then you wouldhave to do it again. The movement of cattle and sheeparound England and Wales was one of the primaryreasons for the breadth of the outbreak of foot andmouth. The time delays that we are talking aboutcould presumably enable the disease to spreadhundreds of miles, could they not?Mr James: Yes.

Q14 Geraint Davies: The prospective cost of thissaving could be hundreds of millions of pounds, ifnot billions.Mr James: It could be lost elsewhere.

Q15 Geraint Davies: Is that correct?Mr James: That is a possibility.

Q16 Geraint Davies: The other thing that interestsme is the importance of having these research hubsin Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. In terms of inwardinvestment and being at the cutting edge ofagribusiness and so on, how important are they forWales?Dr Wright: They are essential. Agriculture benefitstremendously individually and on a pan-Wales levelfrom research and development. For instance,Aberystwyth developed a staining technique, adifferential stain analysis, to tell the differencebetween parasites of the same family. Before thattechnique was developed, it took a lot longer to tellwhat species you had. Things such as drug resistanceare really important in determining what species youhave, as some species of a parasite will respond to adrug and others in the same family will not, simplybecause of their resistance. Even that sort of research

and development affects how farmers treat their stockand how the stock respond to whatever anthelminticor antiparasitic drugs are given.

Q17 Geraint Davies: I presume that the researchdone at Aberystwyth has international application.Dr Wright: Yes.

Q18 Geraint Davies: We visited Brussels to talkabout the availability, for example, of research andinnovation grants for Wales which required a cross-border partnership and this sort of thing. In rippingout this research and development opportunity forWales, is there not a danger that we could beundermining investment flows from Europe andfailing to seize the opportunity of leadership in theglobal field?Dr Wright: Absolutely.

Q19 Geraint Davies: It is a research problem aswell, given the prospective cost of outbreaks. Perhapsit is a very costly risk but it also has a costly impacton our capabilities in Wales.Dr Wright: Absolutely. A proven track record onresearch and development is essential. The work donein Aberystwyth was published in peer review journalsand the technique is now used elsewhere, so suchwork is incredibly important. That experience takes along time to develop, and people have affinities fordifferent lab techniques; so it is not always the casethat you can transfer a lab technique from someonewho is excellent to someone in a different lab. It doesnot work like that. The affinity that labs such asAberystwyth have is essential for funding streams.

Q20 Geraint Davies: The gross value added inWales per job is about 74% of the UK average. I knowthat it is not necessarily to do with the subject, but itis another example of added-value jobs in researchbeing stripped out of Wales, and making Walesrelatively less prosperous again.Dr Wright: Yes.Chair: We might be diverging a little from the subjectof labs.Geraint Davies: None the less, it is very important.It is the rape of the fair country.

Q21 Stuart Andrew: The FUW submission refers tothe use of private laboratories for testing. Howcommon is that currently?Dr Wright: It depends on the technique. Private labsdo quite a lot of the high-throughput, low-staff-to-sample ratio tests; they will do things such asscreening for BVD and Johne’s bulk milk testing.When it comes to the more specialised and unusualtechniques, techniques that are expensive or thatrequire particularly experienced staff or a high-staff-to-sample ratio, private labs tend not to do them. I donot have any data, but I assume that that is becausethey cannot make it pay very well. If you increasereliance upon those private labs, there is a danger thatyou will lose the unusual and experienced cases thatare done by AHVLA.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:27] Job: 017884 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_o001_th_CORRECTED transcript 23 November 2011.xml



Q22 Stuart Andrew: Do you have any specificevidence that there would be an increase in the use ofprivate labs?Dr Wright: No. Basically, that was based on the factthat there could be an overall loss of capacity. It isjust an assumption, but if you lose personnel there isobviously the potential for that to happen.

Q23 Stuart Andrew: Is there any evidence that theseprivate labs are less reliable and less efficient?Dr Wright: I do not have any data on that. I assumethat everything is quality controlled in order to beassessed and to be able to give the result back. I knowthat AHVLA labs are constantly subject to that sort ofcontrol, but I do not know whether private labs are thesame. AHVLA labs are given, as a routine, samples totest—it is double-blind or blind testing—to ensure thattheir quality controls are up to scratch.Stuart Andrew: I think that we have touched on theloss of expertise. Thank you.

Q24 Chair: We are sometimes so enthusiastic thatwe ask questions that we were going to ask later evenearlier than expected. May I go back to an earlierpoint? I have no reason to think that it is incorrect,but you seem to be saying that you do not want thischange to happen because you are not confident thata centralised laboratory system would offer as good aservice as the one that you get at the moment, but, ifit was as good as the Dutch system, it would be betterthan the present system. Is that more or less asummary of what you are saying?Mr James: I mentioned the Dutch system. We want aguaranteed service. As Hazel has said, animal healthis vital to the economy of Welsh farming goingforward. The sooner we know what a disease is, thesooner we can cure it, using the correct treatment. Ifyou take services away from these two labs, you willhave to replace them with something at least as good,if not better. That is what we are saying. For reasonsof topography and other factors, we are not confidentthat that can be delivered. As Hazel has mentioned,once you have taken away one aspect of that testing,it may be easier to close the labs completely. Wewould then have no post-mortem facilities. We fearthat as well, because the cost savings from the labsmay be a lot less than the cost savings as a whole.

Q25 Chair: I completely understand that. I shall putit differently. If you received the reassurance that thesystem that was going to replace the current onewould offer a better service, would that ease yourconcerns? In other words, you are concerned not aboutthe fact that it is in Wales but that you should have aquick turn-around of samples. Is that right?Dr Wright: I would probably still be concerned aboutvulnerability to closure. The issues on closure are verydifferent from those on moving testing. The problemwith closure is that for farmers there will be nowhereeasily to take animals to be post-mortemed, whichimpacts on overall disease and scanning surveillance.It will impact on whether a farmer gets a local service.

Q26 Chair: Let me cut in. Forgive my ignorance,but, when you talk about post-mortems, I presume thatthe scientist has to go to the farm.Mr Morgan: No.

Q27 Chair: Does the farmer give the sample to acarrier?Mr Morgan: I use the Aberystwyth lab because I liveabout 30 miles away. If I have a problem, the first portof call is my vet. The vet will say, “Get a sample toAberystwyth as quickly as possible.” You sometimestake a live sheep, sometimes a foetus, and sometimesit is a cleansing, whatever the disease is of cattle orsheep. We had a problem many years ago withscouring in some calves, and we took a calf up there.I guess that in the good old days they used to takeeven full-grown cattle up there.Mr James: They still do.Mr Morgan: They still do so in Carmarthen, do they?I don’t think they do it in my area. We have a quickturn-around. I can get there in my car and it is fairlyaccessible. It is fairly central for Wales. It is a lotnearer than Weybridge. Once you get the sample tothem, they can do the testing immediately if you havea problem. You can ring your vet, your vet is backon the phone, the diagnostic is there, and you can dosomething. It is usually done within 24 hours.

Q28 Chair: Do they have to be frozen?Mr Morgan: No; they like them fresh, although Ithink that they can do frozen samples.

Q29 Chair: You mentioned the gamma interferontesting that is done in Bristol, I think.Mr James: Yes. It has always been there.

Q30 Chair: Are those samples frozen?Mr James: No, they would be fresh samples.

Q31 Chair: Would freezing lengthen the potentialwindow for testing?Mr James: Perhaps Hazel knows.Dr Wright: My understanding is that you cannotfreeze it.

Q32 Geraint Davies: Can we be clear on this? TheChair may have the wrong end of the stick. He seemsto be saying that, if you could have the same systemin Wales as in Holland, it would be all right; but youare saying that Wales is not Holland, Holland is flat,and you cannot have the same speed of movement inWales as you have in Holland. It is very difficult toget around Wales, and closing down these systemswill cause massive risk both to Wales and England. Itdoes not matter how you dress these cuts up. Therewill be risk and they will undermine Wales.Chair: Hills are not an insoluble transport problem,but there we are.Geraint Davies: We could build a lot of newmotorways across Wales, but we are not intending to.Mr Morgan: The crux of the argument, and you haveheard it from Steve and Hazel, is that we have twocentres in Wales that we as farmers deem to be doingexcellent work. The loss of anything of that sortwould be detrimental to farming in Wales. Okay, we

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:27] Job: 017884 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_o001_th_CORRECTED transcript 23 November 2011.xml



can send it over the border, but we would need aguarantee. I would want a cast-iron guarantee, writtenin blood, that it would be an even better service thanwe get now before I could go back to my membersand tell them what is on offer. At the moment, wehave an excellent system that we can use.Dr Wright: I would want a guarantee that it was notgoing to be the first in a series of closures. Theproblem I have is that, when you reduce testing ortake it away from a lab, it will become morevulnerable to closure because it will be performing areduced service compared to other labs in England.That is a real problem, because you have alreadytaken away a service from Wales, and to take awaypost-mortems will have a completely different impact.I know that it is slightly indirect because we aretalking about testing movement, but that is a concern.I, too, would want a cast-iron guarantee that it meansnothing in terms of the future of those labs, and I donot think such a guarantee would be forthcoming. Sothat would be my concern.Mr James: One other thing that muddies the water isthat animal health is a devolved issue. It is controlledby the Welsh Assembly. That would dirty the water alittle, particularly if they wanted to introduce gammainterferon testing. Because of the intensity of stock inwest Wales and the problems with TB, particularly ifand when there was a badger cull, by using gammainterferon, they could speed up control of the disease.Having a testing facility in Wales would allow themto use that option. If you remove the service, youremove that option. I know it is speculating.Chair: I was hoping that no one would mention thebadger word, because I can see this going off at atangent.

Q33 Jessica Morden: What is the WelshGovernment’s view on these changes?Mr James: To be honest, we have talked to the vetsand the labs, but we have not talked to the WelshGovernment.

Q34 Jessica Morden: In your written evidence, youmake big play of the good local relationships betweenvets, labs and farmers. What will be the impact, andwill it affect the sense of trust if the changes go ahead?Dr Wright: In our evidence, we mentioned a two-tiersystem. I am aware that it is very specific and underspecific circumstances, but you can have an animaltaken and something like a faecal egg-count or aculture done very quickly. A lot of common diseasesare bacterial or parasitological. So keeping those testsin Wales will stop the need for further testingelsewhere, because you can rule out certain sets ofdiseases. You have this very quick system that allowsyou to test for things that are common, and you canget those results back quite quickly. Part of it is alsoto do with local history. The vet will know what wason the farm prior to that and can pass the informationon. If things are centralised or done elsewhere, thattransfer of information might get lost.

Q35 Jessica Morden: So local knowledge isimportant.Dr Wright: I would think that would be important,yes.

Q36 Jessica Morden: Finally, I have a question forMr James. The National Farmers’ Union said inOctober that there had been an increase in the TBincidence rates. As a result of these changes, do youthink that Wales and the UK will be less prepared andless effective in dealing with future outbreaks of TBor foot and mouth?Mr James: As I said, if you wanted to introduce thegamma interferon test, which is a blood test and isbasically the test that they use, it is a lab-related TBtest. At the moment, we have a skin test on the farm;we do not use the labs for TB testing per se. They doabout 2 million or 3 million tests a year UK-wide,but the gamma interferon tests, of which they do only50,000, is a more sensitive test. I would not entertainit if there was a problem with wildlife, I’ll be honestwith you. I know that this is a different subject, but Ilive in a TB hotspot and I would not entertain usinggamma interferon there. But, as part of a package, Iwould be glad to speed up the removal of TB frommy farm. I would entertain the gamma interferon test,although it is quite challenging at the moment becausethey physically cannot cope with many more than50,000. If you have increased testing of gammainterferon as part of a package to get rid of TB, havingfewer laboratories would make it a bigger challengegoing forward.

Q37 Chair: Would you like to see the Assembly orthe Government looking to increase the number ofplaces where gamma interferon tests could take place?Mr James: That is the million dollar question. It hasto be part of a package for wildlife control, but it is avery sensitive test and it takes more cattle; we knowthat. If these animals are constantly being re-infected,once you have done everything else, gammainterferon can be used to clear it up and get rid of thedisease completely. Gamma interferon is used in aclean area. If there is an outbreak of TB in a cleanarea, they will come along with a gamma interferontest and take a substantial number of cattle off thatfarm—cows that have been exposed to the disease—to test them and remove them just to stop TB gettinginto the wildlife in the area. It is part of the policy inEngland and Wales at the moment. Gamma interferonis a good tool in clean areas. It is a cleaning-up tool,and it would be useful to have more of it at that point.Chair: Does anyone have further questions? It seemsnot. In that case, I declare the session over. Thank youvery much for coming along today.Mr James: Thank you for listening.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:45] Job: 017884 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_w008_017412_w008_michelle_Proof AHVLA 08 - DEFRA.xml


Tuesday 29 November 2011

Members present:

David T. C. Davies (Chair)

Stuart AndrewGuto BebbGeraint DaviesJonathan EdwardsNia Griffith

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Geraldine O’Connell, National Secretary, Prospect, and Carl Padgett, President, British VeterinaryAssociation, gave evidence.

Chair: Good morning. If we may, Ms O’Connell andMr Padgett, I would like to start right away, as timeis of the essence this morning with the statementcoming up. Mark, will you ask the first question?

Q38 Mr Williams: My first question is to MrPadgett. Would you explain how the current systemworks, how lab testing is undertaken in Wales, howthe samples get to the laboratories and what time itusually takes to get a result? I think the timinginvolved is quite critical to the debate we are havingover the closure of laboratories in my constituencyand that of Jonathan Edwards.Carl Padgett: If I approach that from the point of viewof a practising vet on a farm who is investigating aparticular scenario that is occurring on that farm, Iwould look at the animals there, and I would oftentake the samples myself or advise the farmer to submitthe samples to the laboratory if he was able to drivebackwards and forwards to the laboratory. Either thator the practice would post them to a suitablelaboratory—if we were taking small specimens, forexample, or pieces for a post-mortem that I havetaken. If it is a carcase, we would almost certainlyadvise the farmer to take the carcase to the laboratory.There it will be given a full post-mortem, or thesample that we have sent through will be looked atmore closely. It is then suitably prepared and testingis done on it, whatever the appropriate tests are.When looking at turnaround times, it all depends whattesting process is required for a particularinvestigation. There are some—for example, parasiteinvestigations on faeces—that can take a matter ofhours, with a result coming back to the veterinarypractice very quickly. There are other bacteriologicalexaminations that can take anywhere between 24 and48 hours, or even longer—a week or two—to comeback, depending on what one is looking for. The needfor a rapid turnaround in a disease picture that isevolving on a farm is absolutely crucial.

Q39 Mr Williams: If the farmer is taking the carcaseor whatever to the lab, the geography—the location ofthese offices—is quite critical, is it not?Carl Padgett: It is quite critical. From myconversations with AHVLA, I understand that itssurvey work suggests that 105 minutes is themaximum one-way journey to a lab that people willundertake. If it is any more than 105 minutes away

Karen LumleyJessica MordenMr Robin WalkerMr Mark Williams

from a lab, they will not. That will be averaged acrossall of them. A similar figure, or just a bit less, of 90minutes was quoted to me recently by the head of theSAC in Scotland. It is a time-limiting factor ratherthan a distance-limiting factor that seems to be at play,and that, undoubtedly, is how it fits into the farmer’sday.

Q40 Nia Griffith: If the Carmarthen or theAberystwyth office is to close, where else apart fromShrewsbury would farmers in the southern half ofWales be able to go?Carl Padgett: It is important to recognise thedifference, in that the time limit that we are talkingabout is for gross specimens. It would be submissionsfor post-mortem or the taking in of a piece of liver,for example, which I do at my own laboratory; I workin the Preston area, so I am able to drive there veryquickly. The principle is still the same; they are grossspecimens. Once we get to the stage of taking asample, preparing it for a lab test and posting it off,that is a different kettle of fish altogether. Myunderstanding is that at the moment the PM facilityaspect will remain as it is.

Q41 Mr Williams: My next question is to MsO’Connell as well. How much of a surprise to youwas the announcement that testing would bediscontinued at Carmarthen and Aberystwyth, or hadyou been consulted beforehand?Geraldine O’Connell: The announcement was asurprise to the staff at both Carmarthen andAberystwyth. There was an ongoing review of thefuture of the regional laboratories when they wereowned by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Thiswas prior to the merger with Animal Health in Junelast year. However, the recommendations of thatreview were never published.There was speculation in the lead-up to theannouncement that there would probably be somedownsizing of the laboratory services, but it came asa complete surprise to the staff that the whole of thelaboratory services directorate in both laboratorieswas identified for closure. Prospect, along with itssister union, had two meetings with AHVLA on 16and 30 August; essentially, we had two weeks’advance notice of their proposals. The difficulty is thatit was all confidential; we could not brief any of our

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:45] Job: 017884 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_w008_017412_w008_michelle_Proof AHVLA 08 - DEFRA.xml


29 November 2011 Geraldine O'Connell and Carl Padgett

members at either laboratory. In essence, that was theonly consultation that we had.

Q42 Mr Williams: Are you suggesting that it was adone deal?Geraldine O’Connell: It was a done deal.

Q43 Mr Williams: Are you particularly concernedabout the lack of an impact assessment in terms ofthe decision?Geraldine O’Connell: We were taken by surprise,given the enormity of the decision and its regionalimpact, not only in Wales but in England as well. Wemight have anticipated a public consultation exercisewith stakeholders on the lab closures. We asked thespecific question whether the Welsh Government hadbeen consulted about the decision. We were told thattheir opinion had been sought and noted, but that wasthe only feedback that we received in relation to theWelsh Government.Carl Padgett: Mine is a slightly different story interms of the strategic discussion on how it impactson animal health and welfare in general, and on theveterinary role within that in a wider sense, and alsohow it interrelates with practice and so on.Immediately prior to the joining of Animal Health andthe Veterinary Laboratories Agency, and immediatelyafterwards, we had—for want of a better phrase—some higher-level, more strategic discussions abouthow, in the current atmosphere of the spending reviewwith its cuts, we were going to maintain some kind ofgood quality surveillance and diagnostic service thatinterrelated with the veterinary profession and thefarming industry in a way that would provide us withthe information we needed. However, that was high-level stuff, rather than the direct specifics of a plan.That progressed, I suppose, from May through toAugust, and we had two or three discussions of thatnature. But the announcement itself that the labs weredefinitely going to close and on what the plan wouldbe was a relative surprise, yes.Mr Williams: It surprised my constituents as well.Chair: I shall have to speed things gently along alittle, if I may.

Q44 Nia Griffith: First, could I mention my entry inthe Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Whatdiscussions have you had with the Wales Office or theWelsh Government?Geraldine O’Connell: Personally, Prospect has nothad any discussions with the Welsh Government,principally because the laboratory services directorateis part of AHVLA, and the legitimate course of actionin terms of a consultation affecting staff in bothlaboratories rests with AHVLA.

Q45 Nia Griffith: What about the Wales Office?Geraldine O’Connell: We have had no discussionswith the Wales Office, either.Carl Padgett: We have had no discussions with theWales Office directly, or with the Welsh AssemblyGovernment, on staff. We have had a number ofconversations with the Welsh Chief Veterinary Officer,with whom we communicate quite regularly. We

wrote a letter to the current Welsh Minister1

suggesting that we were concerned about what washappening, and raising our concerns that themaintenance of an efficient, fast turnaround servicewith respect to laboratory services would be neededto back up the PM facilities. We received a letter backrecognising that those concerns were shared.

Q46 Nia Griffith: You made reference briefly to thelack of consultation. What do you think should havebeen done to take account of the views of people inrural Wales?Geraldine O’Connell: As I said, there was no publicconsultation. We raised concerns about stakeholders,principally in relation to the farming community, and,indeed, the private veterinarians who interface withthe laboratories. We were told at the time that it wasnot critical or influential to the decision that was goingto be made.

Q47 Jonathan Edwards: In evidence last week, theNational Farmers Union said that it normally expectedto get diagnosis results back within 24 hours. I askedthe Minister about this a few weeks ago, and he saidthat anything over 24 hours would be unacceptable.In your expert view, based on the current proposals ofthe agency, are they going to be able to deliver withinthat time scale?Carl Padgett: The 24 hours question is difficult toquantify, because it depends which test one is talkingabout. There is the quick faecal examination test orthe simple 24-hour culture, but even a 24-hour culturewill obviously need extended time; it will be nearer48 hours by the time you get the turnaround. But Itake the broad point that a short turnaround is veryimportant. The success of that will depend on whatcarcase-side testing remains available next to thesecarcases when they are being post-mortemed. Cansome basic bacteriology and parasitology still beundertaken next to the carcase and then turned around,but with the more complex tests being moved on; or,once you have finished with the carcase, will all thelab work get moved off? That is in the detail that wesimply do not understand and do not know yet.

Q48 Jonathan Edwards: The agency’s view is thatconsolidating the services will create a more efficientand expert service. Do you agree with that viewpoint?Carl Padgett: I can see the potential, but we need tosee the details of exactly what testing will be movedto where and what the projections are, and also tounderstand a little more about the contingencies formanaging the threat of isolating some of the morefastidious organisms, which may be destroyed in thetransportation process. We need to understand thosethreats a little more before I can fully answer thatquestion.

Q49 Jonathan Edwards: That may be a question forthe union. The agency has to make savings of £8million, I believe. Where should it make the cutbacks,if not in this particular area?Geraldine O’Connell: It would be churlish of us notto recognise that the agency faces challenging times1 Note by witness: John Griffiths AM

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-04-2012 10:45] Job: 017884 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/017884/017884_w008_017412_w008_michelle_Proof AHVLA 08 - DEFRA.xml



in relation to the cut in its finances. It holds asignificant estate, given the merger of the twoagencies that took place last year. In the first instance,we would always advocate looking at the size of theestate and whether there is an ability to rationalise it.For instance, if one looks at the location of theregional laboratories and the other Animal Healthoffices, not only in Wales but in England, they are allco-located at least in the same county and some withinthe same town. We believe that that might be a moreappropriate way to start looking to meet some of itschallenging targets.

Q50 Chair: This next question is more for MrPadgett, but please feel free to answer, Ms O’Connell,if you wish. I am interested in the question of post-mortem examinations. I understand that they willcontinue at Carmarthen for the time being, but thetesting itself will take place elsewhere. One fear isthat at some future point, after the next review, thepost-mortem service might be lost as well. If you hadan absolutely cast-iron guarantee that the post-mortemservice will continue in Carmarthen, would it reassureyou both?Geraldine O’Connell: The difficulty, in terms of thepost-mortem facilities, is the recommendation thatcertain tests—you would clearly need to turn to anexpert to spell them out—would need to beundertaken at what is called pen-side, alongside thepost-mortem facility. Those largely relate toparasitology and bacteriology. Once theannouncement was made on 1 September, we weretold that the concerns that we raised about the abilityto carry out certain of those tests would disappear ifthe facilities closed and that they were going to reviewthis position, with a proposal that certain test facilitieswould remain. We have not had any feedback on whatthat would entail, or, indeed, whether it would entailany of the current staff.

Q51 Chair: Admittedly, and quite rightly, Prospectdoes not want to see people lose their jobs; nor, Iwould hope, does anyone else. As for the argumentbeing put forward over the loss of services, if youreceived a cast-iron guarantee that post-mortemexaminations would continue at pen-side, would itreassure you that at least we would not see a loss inthe service that the farmers themselves received?Geraldine O’Connell: Potentially, but it could stilllead to a loss of considerable expertise, given theclosure of the other laboratory services on site.

Q52 Chair: Mr Padgett, you have spoken of the needto get things turned around within 24 hours.According to the information that we have, the resultsare usually telephoned through or e-mailed, so theincrease in length of time will be the time it takesto get the samples from the farm to a laboratory inShrewsbury, minus the time it would have taken to getthem to Carmarthen. That is only a matter of two orthree hours, is it not? What makes you think itwouldn’t still be possible to turn things around within24 hours?Carl Padgett: Those are the sorts of studies we needto see and understand more. It is not just from the

farm. It is back to this post-mortem aspect of thesamples being gathered at a post-mortem facility andthen moved off from there. It adds another element oftime into the process. Instead of the carcase startingits journey from a farm, if I, as the veterinary surgeonon the farm, take a blood sample and post it directlyto the relevant lab, which is possible—and it happenswith biochemistry samples to Shrewsbury—that is arelatively quick turnaround.With the more detailed examinations of tissue andcarcases, we get the tissue to the lab first. That willremain; the animal or the tissue will still go to the lab.It is then prepared and a sample is taken, and is thenmoved over again. Another transport process has tooccur to a second laboratory. If it is a relatively simpletest that could be done next to the carcase—such as abasic bacteriology or parasitological examination thatmight take only an hour or two within the lab wherethe carcase or tissue is—that will maintain the 24 or48-hour turnaround; whereas adding another transportprocess, and another afternoon and evening to get toanother lab before beginning the analysis, could addon 12 or 24 hours to the turnaround.If we go back to your original question on premisesand cast-iron guarantees of one premises staying open,it is the facility of being able to handle the carcasesand the tissues that is absolutely important. Given thegeography and transportation in Wales with respect toCarmarthen and Aberystwyth, we have this time limiton how far people are willing to travel. That is wherethe complications really start occurring if we removethose facilities.

Q53 Chair: Do these labs work 24 hours or do theywork late into the evening?Carl Padgett: No. They do not work 24 hours; indeed,a few years ago it was decided to remove Saturdayservices as well. One of the statements that wereceived from AHVLA is that, as a result of poolingthese lab resources, it could start some limitedSaturday testing again. That would go back to theefficiency argument, I suppose.

Q54 Chair: I cannot go into all the ways in whichthe transport could be carried out, but, having workedin that field, I know that it is perfectly feasible tomove large loads from south Wales to Italy within 15or 16 hours. I am having some difficulty with the ideathat it is beyond our capacity to get small samplesfrom west Wales to Shrewsbury in a couple of hours.Let me put it this way. If you were to receive a cast-iron guarantee that results that are currently turnedaround within 24 hours would continue to be turnedaround in 24 hours, with an explanation as to howit is to be done—whether it meant late working atShrewsbury, using some sort of DHL service or doingsomething else that can be investigated—would thatprovide both of you with some reassurance?Carl Padgett: If current performance was at leastmaintained, if not enhanced, through such a cast-ironguarantee, it would be a help. That is purely on thelaboratory side of things.Geraldine O’Connell: We would also want toconsider the capacity side of the laboratoriesundertaking this testing, because there would be no




increase in their capacity. They would have to absorbthis work.

Q55 Geraint Davies: My concern is that, if there isan outbreak of, say, TB or foot and mouth in a remotehill farm near Aberystwyth, and it is detected on aSaturday when these facilities are closed or whatever,the question is whether their closure will increase theexpected transmission of those diseases. What is yourview, in a worst-case scenario, of the impact of thesedecisions on the spread of foot and mouth if theoutbreak was in a remote hill farm and, given sod’slaw, things went wrong?Carl Padgett: That all depends on the individualdisease scenario. If you take a highly infectiousdisease such as foot and mouth that had somehowbeen missed at farm level and was possibly going tobe picked up at one of the centres in gross pathology,those PM services are currently remaining. I am notabsolutely sure that it is the containment of a bigdisease problem that is the major problem. It ispassive surveillance for new, emerging and ongoingissues that could be lost in terms of expertise here thatI am more worried about. For big things such as footand mouth, the reference laboratories have been atPirbright for some time; those facilities come into playless with that big type of disease.TB is an interesting one. You have a different issuegoing on there, with particular stratagems being put inplace in Wales, and there is an argument to suggestthat they may need to retain their particular diagnosticservices for that.

Q56 Geraint Davies: Can you quantify it? We knowthere is an attempt to save £8 million, and we knowthat the cost of foot and mouth was £8 billion. Theissue is what the marginal cost will be of the extratransmission spread due to the delay caused by theclosure of these centres.Carl Padgett: I cannot quantify that at all. We wouldneed proper epidemiological expert advice on it.

Q57 Geraint Davies: What about a timingquantification—for instance, if we knew that thespread was occurring for an additional half a day, twodays or whatever? These are big impacts, are they not,to the farming industry?Carl Padgett: Any delay in lab turnaround has thepotential to cause what you are saying, but it is almostimpossible to quantify it because every disease pictureis different. With slow-moving diseases such as TB,the effect may be less, but with rapidly movingdiseases such as foot and mouth, any delay will bedifficult.

Q58 Geraint Davies: How big could the delay be ina worst-case scenario due to these closures?Carl Padgett: On the lab services side, as wementioned before to the gentleman who asked aquestion before, the Chairman, it depends how longthe transport takes to get backwards and forwards tothe lab in terms of lab tests alone.Geraint Davies: It could be days.Chair: I think we have explored that point very well.Geraint Davies: We haven’t got an answer.

Q59 Karen Lumley: We asked the last few witnessesabout the service that operates in Holland, wherecarcases and samples are refrigerated, and testingtakes place in one location. Would it be possible to dothat in the UK, and specifically in Wales, given itstopography and its poor transport links?Carl Padgett: It is an interesting theory, and Iunderstand that it works. They pool all their resourcesinto the one lab and have very dedicated expertisewithin that lab, sharing all their ideas and expertise asone follows a case through. I understand that, ineffect, the transport system starts at the periphery andthen works in through the day, picking up samplesand bringing them in centrally. It would all depend onwhether the plan would fit with our road and trafficinfrastructure over here, because it is a very differentplace from Holland with their particular transport andmotorway infrastructure. We would have to do thetime and motion studies to see how applicable it couldbe, but it is an interesting idea.

Q60 Karen Lumley: Do you think it could work?Carl Padgett: As we move forward into an area wherewe will be considering post-mortem type issues, asfuture strategies are developed beyond lab services—we will be beyond 2013 by then—those are the sortsof things that we might have to look at and understandbetter, yes.

Q61 Mr Walker: We had some evidence from theFarmers Union of Wales that talks about the increaseduse of private laboratories if these changes go through.I note that the BVA evidence says that there are someconcerns about the ability of the private sector toinvest. Would you expand on that? Do you think thatthere is an opportunity for the private sector to makeup some of this?Carl Padgett: There is always an opportunity, if themarket is there, to spend on the testing. We arealluding there to the fact that, if there is not currenthigh demand for diagnostic testing in certain areas,the market may struggle to provide. It will be fine ifthere is a high volume of testing coming through forthe regular every-day diagnostics, as private enterprisewill step into the breach. If we are talking aboutdiseases that hardly ever come about, we will need tomaintain a surveillance capacity to be able to test forthem. That is where the private element has a lessgood history of maintaining that expertise, because itis not making money for them.

Q62 Stuart Andrew: Last week, the FUW wereconcerned about the loss of scientific expertise, andparticularly they mentioned that within both of theselabs there are people with specialist knowledge on, forinstance, bacteriology. Do you have specific concernsabout what might be lost, and what, in particular, doyou think will be lost if these two laboratories wereto close?Geraldine O’Connell: Originally, 14 posts wereidentified to be lost in Wales; that has now reduced to13. These are scientific posts. There are concernsbecause those specialisms have been developed overa considerable time. That is not to say that specialistsdo not exist in the other laboratories; clearly, they do.




My understanding, though, is that Aberystwyth is acentre of excellence in parasitology, and that expertisehas been used by other laboratories on occasion. Thereis a real concern that that will be lost to the region.There is very little possibility of staff redeployment inWales in relation to their specialisms, and there is littleprospect of redeployment elsewhere within AHVLAbecause of the geography involved.

Q63 Stuart Andrew: Are you concerned that therehas been no offer of relocation for the staff?Geraldine O’Connell: In fairness, if job opportunitieswere available in other regional laboratories and ifindividuals were willing to transfer, AHVLA wouldmake funding available in those circumstances.

Q64 Jessica Morden: Did the decision todiscontinue laboratory testing in Wales take accountof the fact that Wales is a high-density livestock area?Was that a problem?Geraldine O’Connell: No, I don’t think it did. Youwill clearly want to ask AHLVA about its decision-making process on this, but the whole premise, orpredication, of the decision was that the number oftests has been reducing and, indeed, the setting up ofsites of excellence in the laboratories that have beenretained. I do not believe the density of farm animalsin any particular location has been taken into account.

Q65 Jessica Morden: The FUW said in its evidencethat it was worried about a two-tier system springingup between Wales and England. Is that something thatconcerns you? Do you agree with that?Geraldine O’Connell: Clearly, one of the first thingsmentioned by the membership in Wales was thatScotland has retained its laboratory at Lasswade andthat regional laboratories will be retained in England,and they asked why Wales has not retained alaboratory. As I said, that was predicated on otherfactors, but that has been a major concern. Anotherissue that has been raised is whether regionallaboratories will test their own samples first or thosesent to them.Carl Padgett: My understanding is that, if there is aloss of current performance and rapid turnaround dueto the carcase-side testing that is going on at themoment, then it will become two-tier for those inWales because they will not be accessing the servicesas much and they will not be getting information in atimely fashion.

Q66 Nia Griffith: What effect will the proposeddiscontinuation of AHVLA services have on therelationship between local vets, laboratories and theagricultural community in Wales?Carl Padgett: If the scenario that I have just paintedbecomes a reality, it will erode the relationshipbetween all three elements—the surveillance element,the practising veterinary element and the farmingindustry.

Q67 Nia Griffith: Do you think that the savingsmade by this discontinuation could be used to makethe service more efficient? Is there a positive side tothis at all?

Carl Padgett: The whole thing is predicated on thefact that there could be enhanced performance, but wehave not seen that detail yet. I need to see that detailbefore answering. I could see scenarios where maybeit could, but, without seeing in absolute detail wherethe money is going and how it is going to beorganised, it is difficult to answer.

Q68 Nia Griffith: Ms O’Connell, would you like tocomment on that?Geraldine O’Connell: No, I do not think I haveanything to add.

Q69 Guto Bebb: I take you back to the line ofinquiry that Geraint Davies was pursuing. In October,the National Farmers Union indicated that figures ofTB cases in Wales had seen an increase. On issuessuch as TB or foot and mouth, would Wales be in aworse position or a better position as a result of theproposed changes if they were implemented?Carl Padgett: I am not convinced that these directproposals on lab closures would mean that we werein a worse position to handle the outbreak. However,if we progress to the nightmare scenario of losing thePM facilities and expertise, there will be an effect; wewill be in a worse position. I will qualify that slightlywith the lab set-up. Carmarthen has category 3premises, so it can handle risky materials such as TB.If we remove a lot of the lab facilities from there,some of the local epidemiology work, for example,may not be carried out in the same way. That is verymuch a Welsh focus within the Welsh plan for dealingwith TB and how it decides to go about that, but anyremoval of that expert-type facility has to be a threat.Geraldine O’Connell: You also have to recognise thatthe staff who will be affected will not be available fordeployment in potential outbreaks of notifiablediseases, which they were in the past. Then, they cameout of their labs and assisted field staff on the groundon anything that was required. Given the numbersinvolved in the 2001 outbreak, that is obviously ofsome significance.

Q70 Mr Williams: Following your earlier answerabout the long-term future, do you suspect that in acouple of years we will be inviting you back to talkabout the final closure of the laboratories inAberystwyth and Carmarthen? Is that the direction oftravel?Carl Padgett: I am scared that that is the direction oftravel or at least one of them. The closure of only onewould mean that we would start hitting the time limitsfor submissions, unless some other facility is put inplace.

Q71 Mr Williams: Is that your suspicion, working inthe field with your expertise, or is it something thathas been discussed with AHVLA?Carl Padgett: That is my suspicion and my feelingof the general direction of travel over 20-odd yearsin practice.Geraldine O’Connell: Clearly, our concern when theannouncement was made on 1 September was whetherit was the first tranche of closure of the full regionallaboratory. AHVLA have given assurances that we




should not draw any conclusions about their proposalson laboratory services, but that doesn’t mean that theregional laboratories won’t close. However, we werepromised the outcome of the surveillance report at theend of October, and it has not materialised, so thereare some pressing concerns as to what might happenin the longer term.

Q72 Mr Williams: What would the complete loss ofthose two laboratories mean in terms of numbers ofpeople losing their jobs? You have talked about thepotential for redeployment, but only the potential.What would it involve, and how many people wouldbe affected, not to mention the loss of expertise andspecialisms?Geraldine O’Connell: I do not have the total numberof staff employed at Carmarthen and Aberystwyth, butI can submit it later.2

Chair: Thank you. We have two very brief questions.The first is from Geraint Davies.

Q73 Geraint Davies: Given what we have heardabout the risks, the delays, the loss of expertise, theissue of proximity to high-density cattle and thefailure to consult the Welsh Assembly Government,do you feel that the whole question should be lookedat again in order to see whether there is a morerational and less risky way of moving forward interms of cost management?Geraldine O’Connell: Yes, I do. The two issuesinvolved have fundamentally come down to the lengthof time that it takes to transport a sample and thereturn analysis on that, and how that sample mightdegenerate in transmission. They are two key areas onwhich we do not feel we have bottomed out, and itwould be useful to have reassurances on both beforepressing forward with the proposals that exist at themoment.

Q74 Geraint Davies: So there may be ways ofmaking costs savings with less risk and less damage2 Note by witness: Aberywstwth—the total number of

employees present on the site is 5, so if the site is to closein the longer term then 5 posts will be lost in total.Carmarthen—the total number of employees present on thesite is 19, so if the site closes in the longer term then 19posts will be lost in total.

Witnesses: Rt Hon James Paice MP, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs, and Catherine Brown, Chief Executive, AHVLA, gave evidence.

Chair: Minister, thank you very much for comingalong this morning. I also thank Catherine Brown,from AHVLA. Guto Bebb will ask the first question.

Q77 Guto Bebb: Good morning, Minister. Could youtell us when you became aware of the agency’sdecision to discontinue with laboratory testing inWales?Mr Paice: It was towards the end of August. I can tellyou the date precisely. It was 23 August.

Q78 Guto Bebb: What input did you and yourofficials have on that decision?

to the skills infrastructure, and a fairer deal forfarmers in Wales.Geraldine O’Connell: We believe so, yes.

Q75 Jonathan Edwards: You have answered myquestion, Ms O’Connell. Perhaps Mr Padgett wouldlike a go at it. Will there be a deterioration in thequality of the sample as the delays go along?Obviously, the greatest concern is that longer delaysbetween post-mortem and testing will have animalhealth implications, but is there a deterioration in thequality of the sample?Carl Padgett: Depending on the test beingundertaken, the sample itself can deteriorate if we arelooking at pieces of tissue, for example. But, moreimportantly, some organisms that are difficult to lookafter—for instance, once they are taken on a swab andput into some sort of transport medium—can die veryquickly. So, the faster they are put into the correctculture environment, the better. We need to do somework to understand what postage or other transportissues, with time delays built into them, will mean forthose organisms.

Q76 Chair: Thank you both for coming along andgiving evidence this morning. Finally, before you go,it is a cheeky question, but is there anything else thatyou would like us to put to the Minister, who iscoming to give evidence in a moment? We are goingto ask about guarantees, transport, samples fromWales being treated less favourably and a couple ofother things. What would be the key question that youwould ask the Minister if he were sitting before youand you could ask him anything you wanted?Geraldine O’Connell: Following on from your line ofquestioning, we would like to know when thesurveillance report will be published and whetherthere will be any guarantees associated with it thatnone of the regional laboratories will be closed as aconsequence.Chair: We have all heard you make that point. I havea funny feeling that question may now get asked.Thank you very much.

Mr Paice: Virtually none. It was considered to be adecision for the executive of the AHVLA. When thedecision was brought to me on that date, myimmediate reaction—and we have double checked thepaper trail to ensure that this is correct—was toidentify that the proposal was to close laboratorytesting in the two centres in Wales. I asked forclarification from Catherine, Chief Executive ofAHLVA, and she informed me later of the reasons forit. The decision therefore stood.

Q79 Guto Bebb: Would it be possible to explain thereasoning behind the agency’s proposal to stoplaboratory testing in Aberystwyth and Carmarthen?



29 November 2011 Rt Hon James Paice MP and Catherine Brown

Mr Paice: Of course, but, if you do not mind, I shallask Catherine to do it, as it was an executive issue.Catherine Brown: The fundamental “ask” of me, interms of getting the agency fit for the future and beingable to deliver services, was to reduce expenditure by£34 million over the next four years while protectingdelivery and outputs and inputs, and particularly stillbeing able to respond to foot and mouth and otherexotic outbreaks.It is a 30% cut, and there is a specific request that wealso look for a 30% cut in surveillance. There aresome particular things about post-mortems that arevery important, such as the link between our vets andprivate vets and farmers in terms of carcase materialand post-mortems. Although it was urgent to make adecision to work out how we could start saving themoney—because some of it is for next year—wewanted to be clear about whether we really needed toplunge into making urgent decisions on post-mortemsand carcase submission or whether it was possible tolook at things that were significantly less impactful.We undertook an expert review, in which the CVO ofWales and the epidemiologist from Defra wasinvolved, which came to the conclusion that we couldsplit the place where you did the testing and the placewhere you did the post-mortem. That is not entirelynew news, because less than 20% of tests on Welshmaterial are done in Wales anyway. None of the TBtesting samples are processed in Wales, and no testingfor notifiable diseases and no testing for foot andmouth is being done in Wales now. We knew that, butit was confirmed by the review.At that point, we said okay then, let us put aside thequestion—this goes to Geraldine’s point about whythere has been a delay in the post-mortem surveillancereview outcomes—and take more time to think andtalk with people about that, because it is extremelysensitive in terms of the impacts it will have.However, we need to make savings for next year, solet us look at the lab services, and work out where theoptimum place is to deliver lab services that will savethe maximum amount of money while safeguardingthe results. As I said, less than 20% of Welsh testingis done in Wales; less than 2% of the testing that wedo currently is done in the Welsh labs. We had to thinkhow to save the maximum amount of money whiledelivering the maximum amount of excellence andexpertise in services. There are benefits to bringingthings together into bigger centres. It is not great anymore to have lots of tiny centres, because, althoughwe have heard and talked about expertise, such asystem does not sustain expertise. [Interruption.] I amgetting a stop sign so I will stop.Chair: I apologise. Thank you for that detail, but wehave to rattle through things a little faster.

Q80 Guto Bebb: Thank you for that answer. Howmuch money will be saved under the plans that are tobe implemented in Wales?Catherine Brown: Of the £2.4 million, it will be£450,000. That is only the direct costs of the staffinvolved. It will be a little more than that. There arealso some on-costs and some equipment-type costs,but it is of that kind of magnitude.

Q81 Guto Bebb: Just to provide us with a context,what sort of cost savings is the agency pursuing at thispoint in time?Catherine Brown: We are pretty much there on the£8.5 million that we had to make this year comparedto last year. It is roughly between £8.3 million and£8.7 million over the next three years; it is that kindof scale.Earlier, people mentioned estate rationalisation, andwe are looking hard at that. At the same time as wemade these changes, we agreed to move andconsolidate in Newcastle, to close an office inTaunton, and to consolidate field work into theShrewsbury lab site. That is another £500,000 or£600,000 of savings from estate rationalisation, andwe will certainly be looking to do more. We have toget to the bottom of the question of surveillance andpost-mortem sites before we can work out which arethe best sites to keep open and which are the best sitesto consolidate. All of these things are being looked atall the time.

Q82 Stuart Andrew: Can you reassure us that thedecision sufficiently took account of the fact thatWales is a high-density livestock area?Catherine Brown: The crux issue here is thatlaboratory testing generally does not need to becarried out where post-mortems are carried out. As Isaid, only 20% of Welsh testing is currently carriedout in Wales. It is correct to say that livestock densitywas not a major driver of the lab rationalisationproposals. Where it is significant is in the post-mortemlocations and the relationship with private vets. Whenwe come to a conclusion about the best way forwardfor surveillance and post-mortems, we need to be clearthat it really does take account of livestock densityand the particular features of farming in the differentplaces we are considering.

Q83 Stuart Andrew: Why was there no consultationon this issue or no impact assessment produced?Catherine Brown: There isn’t a requirement to do animpact assessment because it’s not a policy change.As my objective was to deliver the savings andminimise any negative impact, there was obviously alot of thinking about what the negative impacts mightbe and how we could mitigate them, and whether wecould come up with positive impacts. Opening onSaturdays across the network will significantlyimprove a proportion of the testing that we do, andthe speed of some of the work and the results that wecan send back. There was no impact assessment butlots of thinking about it.Mr Paice: May I intervene? It is important to recallthe first point that Catherine made, which is that thisdecision was the consequence of a review thatcertainly did involve consultation. The question waswhether it was necessary to have laboratory serviceson the same sites as post-mortem facilities. That mostdefinitely was a wider issue, and it involved the ChiefVeterinary Officer from Wales. The decision aboutwhich veterinary laboratories should cease operatingwas consequent on that wider consultation.




Q84 Stuart Andrew: What representations did youreceive from the Wales Office on the decision?Mr Paice: The honest answer is that the WalesOffice was concerned that it was apparentlynot informed. However, the Chief Veterinary Officerfor Wales definitely was, and an extract fromher correspondence is in our memorandum ofunderstanding. I am afraid that communicationswithin the Welsh Government and/or the Wales Officeare not a matter for me, but the Chief VeterinaryOfficer was properly consulted as required, and youhave seen her response.Catherine Brown: I have arranged to meet the WelshMinister quarterly from now on and establish a moredirect input as well.

Q85 Nia Griffith: When you say the Welsh Minister,do you mean the Welsh Minister in the WelshGovernment?Catherine Brown: Yes, John Griffiths.

Q86 Mr Williams: On that point, do you meanrepresentations from the Wales Office or fromMinisters in the National Assembly Government—Elin Jones previously and now Mr Alun Davies? Towhom did you speak?Catherine Brown: John Griffiths.

Q87 Mr Williams: You have spoken to him. Do youplan to talk again with him?Catherine Brown: Yes.

Q88 Chair: Minister, will your Department bepublishing the AHVLA sustainable surveillancereport?Mr Paice: We have not got to that stage yet. The issueof surveillance is a major consultation which we aredeveloping at the moment. It will be early next year,Catherine, when you plan to publish. Correct me if Iam wrong.Catherine Brown: We are coming to that, but,because it is so complicated and locality sensitive, wethought we would set up an advisory group—I agreedthis with Mr Griffiths the other day—with the Englishand the Welsh. Although it is obviously veryreasonable to concentrate on Wales, it is about asingle network.

Q89 Chair: But there is going to be a report, and itis going to be published.Mr Paice: The consultation.Catherine Brown: There is going to be a group, andwe would anticipate giving it the report. The groupwill include people from Wales such as vets andfarmers. It will not be a secret report.

Q90 Geraint Davies: You said that there will be a30% cut in surveillance. That will be done on the backof a report that people have not seen—the sustainablesurveillance project report. People want to see thereport and the basis on which you are making yourdecisions. A lot of what you are now saying was notknown to the Committee beforehand, and people seemto be shooting in the dark. It does not seem to be avery professional way of moving forward together. To

reiterate the previous question, the industry wants toknow when you are going to publish the surveillanceproject report. Who made the decision that there willbe a 30% cut in surveillance, and why?Catherine Brown: It is not that there has been a 30%cut in surveillance. I have been asked to look at theexpenditure on surveillance, but this is not new news.Fundamentally, I have to make a 30% cut on allbudgets. There are issues around the best way ofdoing surveillance. The surveillance report that we arereferring to will not answer all the questions, suchas where we should have labs or sites where we dopost-mortems.

Q91 Geraint Davies: You are self-evidently anexpert, but would you not agree that simply sayingthat you have to make a 30% cut in surveillance is thewrong way to consider the issue? The question is whatthe risks, the benefits and the costs are, and how wemanage change in difficult economic times, ratherthan making a 30% surveillance reduction, whichmight impose a risk on transmission, industry costsand the rest of it. Where does the 30% come from?Mr Paice: The 30% figure is the reduction that Defrahas imposed on the agency, as has been imposed onDefra and virtually every Government Department.The agency has to make a 30% reduction over theperiod of the spending review, and it is for the chiefexecutive and her colleagues to decide how thosefinancial reductions should be made. However, MrDavies, you should not confuse reducing money withcutting surveillance. The purpose of the wider workon surveillance is to maximise our surveillance withinwhatever budget Catherine has.

Q92 Geraint Davies: What will be the increase inthe transmission of disease due to the reduction insurveillance?Catherine Brown: In terms of these laboratorychanges, I do not think there will be any impact. Interms of our surveillance review, I hope we will beable to come out with something that is better, but thatwill require a bit of flexibility.

Q93 Jonathan Edwards: Can you explain some ofyour thinking on why you have decided to retainShrewsbury rather than a Welsh centre, consideringthe density of livestock in west Wales?Catherine Brown: That goes to the fact that it is nota decision about post-mortem sites; it is only adecision about laboratory services. As I said, at themoment less than 2% of our testing work goes throughthe two Welsh laboratories and more than 10% goesthrough Shrewsbury, which is a bigger centre withmore staff. Basically, there are significant savings andpotential quality improvements to be had from havinga smaller number of larger centres. We are not lookingat the full model of a single centre, but we are lookingat centres of expertise. You could build up a centre ofexpertise in Carmarthen, for example, but you wouldthen be recruiting and you would simultaneously bemaking people redundant elsewhere. First, it wouldcost more, and, secondly, it would seem wrong to losethe expertise and the staff that we have in other places.The key driver is to do with expertise and scale.




Q94 Nia Griffith: We heard earlier that the BVA isstill unsure what tests will remain with the post-mortem and which will be discontinued. Can youexplain exactly what the situation will be, and can youtell us whether all lab testing will be moved fromWales?Catherine Brown: No. All lab testing will not bemoved, because a small number of tests will need tobe carried out right next to the carcase. I am not anexpert, but I obviously work with experts, and wehave been through this. With things such as anthraxdiagnosis, some of the parasites in samples die veryquickly, but you can see them while they are alive.The things that we are keeping include sustaining amicroscopic examination in order to discover thingslike Brucella or Q fever, but that will still be next tothe carcase, along with anthrax diagnoses and variousother wet preparations. The things that we consider tobe most sensitive or most urgent will remain there.However, the large majority of things will obviouslynot be there—but then, the large majority of thingsalready aren’t.

Q95 Nia Griffith: Some people are very worriedabout delays, wondering how long it will take forthings to go to England and to get the results back.What assurances can you give people that there willnot be unacceptable delays in the results comingback?Catherine Brown: For notifiable diseases, we do nottest in Wales, so, if there is a question about onwardtransmission and economic impact, it will not beaffected. As soon as there is any suspicion, we send avet on site; they look at it, and if they are the slightestbit concerned they send samples hot-foot toWeybridge, or, if it is foot and mouth, to IAH atPirbright. There is no effect on that.The kind of samples that we generally get in throughthe post-mortem side are not always urgent, and at themoment we reckon that less than half of the resultscome back within 48 hours. It is a very small numberof things for which there is a real driver for only afew hours. In those cases, if we thought that there wasa really strong veterinary reason, we could use theprocess we use for notifiable disease samples to sendthings on.

Q96 Nia Griffith: What do you anticipate will be themaximum time from sample-taking to laboratorytesting? For example, if something had to be sent to aparticular centre in England—even there, the labshave specialities and so forth—what is likely to be themaximum time from something being taken for testingto actually being tested in the laboratory?Catherine Brown: It will depend a little on the timeof day the post-mortem is received, but I suppose itmight be 24 hours.

Q97 Nia Griffith: What sort of assessment have youmade of whether there will be any deterioration ofsamples in that time? Given what you propose, is whatwill happen to the samples still going to give you thebest quality results that you need? What assessmenthave you made?

Catherine Brown: We have evidence from the threeplaces where we have not done any local testing—our two surveillance centres and the vet schools. OurNewcastle site has been using this system for a year,and there has been no evidence of any deteriorationthere. However, we are doing studies now to checkthat. For instance, we are doing some research atThirsk. The parasitology piece of research that we aregoing to do will be co-ordinated by the team in Wales,which will be testing and comparing the results. Sofar, no differences are emerging, but, if there were, wewould look at what we could do to ensure that therewas no impact.

Q98 Nia Griffith: The NFU talks of havingcollections made directly from the farm by the localvet. Is that an option that you have considered?Catherine Brown: That is an important thing to beconsidered in the context of surveillance and the post-mortem; it will certainly be part of the mix that thatgroup of people will be thinking about.Mr Paice: It might be worth making the point onsurveillance that we need to recognise the dramaticchange that there has been over the last few years inthe private veterinary sector. Local practices are nowmuch more sophisticated; they are almost centres ofexcellence, with many vets in a single practice. Thedays of the single-vet practice are dramaticallyreduced. That gives us opportunities that we did nothave before. As Catherine said, that factor will bebuilt into the wider surveillance work that we arecommencing, to see how the agency can work moreclosely with the larger private-sector veterinarypractices, many of which are extremely well equipped.

Q99 Nia Griffith: Will you sum up for us the exacteffect that these proposals will have on surveillanceand on the early diagnosis of disease outbreaks, andwhat further actions will you need to take as a resultof that?Catherine Brown: This set of proposals—the changesthat we are making now—will have no impact on thethings that you describe, except by saving the £2.5million that I would otherwise have had to savesomewhere else. Indirectly, that is a good thing. Asfor the work that needs to happen on surveillancemore widely, and the post-mortems and how we workwith others, it is not just about the post-mortems thatwe do; there is an emphasis on working more withother people, and using other people’s surveillancedata more.

Q100 Nia Griffith: How will that £2.5 million besaved? Are you expecting more work to be done withthe same number of staff in the English centres?Where are the savings to come from? They willpossibly come from buildings, but how will youensure that the personnel can achieve them?Catherine Brown: Over the six years, volumes willhave dropped by 75%, staff costs will have gone upby 6%, and staff numbers will have dropped by 5%;and this is at a time when there is more technology tomake things less human-dependent. We are confidentthat we will be able to absorb this work, and we wouldnot rule out the possibility of further efficiencies.




Q101 Chair: Thank you. We must move on a little.May I interject to ask if you would consider Saturdaytesting at any of the laboratories in England if it werenecessary, or late working?Catherine Brown: Yes. We have already said that wewill introduce Saturday working; that will be asignificant improvement.

Q102 Jonathan Edwards: May I bring you back tothe 24-hour delays? I know that it is a bit morecomplicated than that, as we heard in previousevidence, but the Minister said on the Floor of theHouse that a 24-hour delay would be unacceptable.You now say that it would take about 24 hours. Is the24-hour delay being unacceptable still your policy ornot? What is the situation?Catherine Brown: I would say that it would beunacceptable for there to be any delay in foot andmouth or notifiable diseases. It would clearly be verynegative and unacceptable in Wales for there to be amaterial delay in getting the TB test results. None ofthat will occur. For the minority of tests currentlydone in Wales that will not still be done in Wales, itwill not prove material for many of them, but, if asignificant veterinary risk was associated with it, wewould commit to taking special measures, as wewould with notifiable disease samples.

Q103 Karen Lumley: Last week, we heard about thesystem that operates in Holland where they collect thecarcases in a refrigerated service. Is that somethingwe could use in the UK?Catherine Brown: It is something that we will wantthe surveillance review to think about. It is veryimportant that we keep our local vets with localknowledge and relationships with local private vetsand farmers. Whether you need to do the post-mortemin the same place where that relationship exists is oneof the things that the surveillance review shouldexplore.

Q104 Mr Williams: I return to your relationship withthe National Assembly Government. You plan toachieve a single network of laboratories with existingservice provision, but animal health and welfarematters are devolved to the Assembly. I was going toask you about TB, but you mentioned that no TBtesting has been undertaken in Wales anyway.However, there could be a situation in other policyareas where there has to be a complementaryapproach. How will you guarantee such an approachbetween policy initiatives in Cardiff and your agendain London?Catherine Brown: Not all the budgets are devolved.The Welsh Government and Defra agreed that therewas benefit in looking at surveillance across Englandand Wales together, so they did not devolve allbudgets. Instead, they set up a steering group, whichthe CVOs of Wales, England and Scotland are on, tothink about evidence and surveillance and to governthose shared budgets. That, I think, is the place whereI will go when I get the outcomes from the advisorygroup, which will include Welsh inputs. I will look togo to that GB-wide place, and talk about that with allthe CVOs together, and then we will make

submissions both ways—to the Welsh Ministers andDefra Ministers.

Q105 Mr Williams: On TB testing, what was yourtime frame? You say that no testing is undertaken inWales, but what was the time frame of those tests?Have there been any particular problems with thetime frames?Catherine Brown: No; there were some issues withthe gamma interferon testing, but not so much withthe time frames. When we first introduced that test—it is one of the tests that we do for TB—there weresome issues with the temperature of the samples, butthose problems have now been resolved.

Q106 Mr Williams: Was TB testing ever undertakenat these laboratories?Catherine Brown: Yes.

Q107 Mr Williams: When did it cease?Catherine Brown: There was a little testing going onin Carmarthen until fairly recently. When we mergedAnimal Health and VLA, the decision had been takento consolidate the TB testing in other sites, so thesmall amount done in Carmarthen was in the processof being moved.

Q108 Mr Williams: Was it within the last five years?Catherine Brown: Yes. It was within the last coupleof years, certainly.

Q109 Mr Walker: We have also had evidence fromthe Farmers Union of Wales that referred to anincreased role for private laboratories. I wonder whatyou, respectively, think about that. Do you see anopportunity there for the private sector?Catherine Brown: One of the things we say is that,strategically, it is not about us insisting on doingeverything ourselves. It is about working inpartnership, including with the private sector. We wantthe surveillance review to think about that, and weare going to have somebody from the private sectorinvolved in that review to ensure that we take accountof their perspective.Mr Paice: It is not an ideological issue. It is simplyabout maximising all of our facilities, whether theyare private or, as in some parts of the country,charitable in some sectors, including the state sector.It is a question of how we can work together tomaximise our surveillance.

Q110 Mr Walker: In our previous witness session,we heard that the BVA is concerned that the privatesector might be interested in the more routine testing,but less so in the specialist work and rarer issues. Isthat something that your agency will need to consider?Catherine Brown: It is certainly something that weneed to be mindful of. As we consider where it mightbe suitable and proper for the private sector to havemore of a role, one of the things that we will bethinking about is exactly that. What is the right mix,is there a risk of cherry-picking, and how best shouldwe manage it?




Q111 Jonathan Edwards: We have received someconcerns about the deterioration of samples if there isa delay between the post-mortem and testing at thelabs. How are you going to address that issue, becausethat is quite a significant problem, I would imagine?Catherine Brown: Yes. The things that we think therewould be a definite issue with we are keeping next tothe post-mortem, which I mentioned at the beginning.We will look to keep those very sensitive things nextto the post-mortem. For everything else, it is ourexperience that it has not impacted on quality at thethree places where this is already in place, but we arealso doing studies to ensure that there is not anyimpact. So far no impact is showing. If there were tobe any impacts, we would look at how we couldmitigate those; there are things we could do.

Q112 Jonathan Edwards: The FUW said inevidence that both Carmarthen and Aberystwyth arecentres of excellence. How can you as an agencyafford to lose that expertise and staff?Catherine Brown: Of course, all our laboratories havevery good people and are centres of excellence tosome degree. We have a lot of experience among thestaff at our Welsh labs, but, with the exception of alittle bit of specific expertise in the Aberystwyth labin some of the parasitology, that expertise is generallyavailable across our network.Chair: Nia Griffith is going to ask about the proposeddiscontinuation of AHVLA services and therelationships with vets.

Q113 Nia Griffith: There is a relationship betweenthe local community and the vets, but the way thingsare going there will obviously be an impact. Wecovered the matter slightly when we mentioned thepersonalisation of veterinary services and so forth.How do you see the impact of the changedrelationship between the farmers and the vets on thetesting procedures?Catherine Brown: This should not make anydifference. We will still take post-mortems andsamples in the same way as we always have. As Isaid, there will be some improvements, with Saturdayopening and speeding up things coming back.Although there might be some marginal changesaround the edges with some of the non-urgent tests, itwill not make any difference. What people are worriedabout is the surveillance relationship—the local VIOand private vet relationship. That is at the core of whatwe need to think about in our post-mortem andsurveillance work. However, it is completelyacknowledged that it is at the core, which is why youcannot simply say that a very efficient model wouldbe to have everything in one place. It would not bevery efficient if it broke that link and we did not getthe submissions any more.

Q114 Karen Lumley: Can you reassure us that, as aresult of the changes, Wales and the UK will not beless prepared and less effective if there is a futureoutbreak of foot and mouth or TB?Catherine Brown: Yes.Mr Paice: We cannot overestimate the importance ofthat. I am absolutely determined that we have every

preparedness—indeed, Defra runs exercises to checkon our preparedness—for foot and mouth or any otherof these diseases, which are peculiarly called exoticdiseases. As you have heard, suspected notifiablediseases such as foot and mouth would not be affectedby these changes at all, as the samples would gostraight to Pirbright.

Q115 Chair: I assume from previous answers thatyou are both unable to give any guarantee as to thefuture of the Carmarthen laboratory or any of the otherregional laboratories, because there is to be a move tolook at what you call restructuring, but, basically,looking at closing some of them down. If everythingremained as it is in Carmarthen, would it make it anyless likely that Carmarthen remained open?Catherine Brown: No, I don’t think so. We obviouslyhad to think quite hard about that before we decidedthat, yes, we could push on with these lab servicechanges before knowing what we wanted to do aboutthe post-mortems.

Q116 Chair: To summarise, there is a risk to thefuture of Carmarthen—we should be honest aboutthat—but it has not become more risky as a result ofthese changes. In short, is that your position?Catherine Brown: Yes. It has not become more risky;that is correct. But, in order to be clear, I think it isvery unlikely that we won’t have a presence inCarmarthen. We have a field site in Carmarthen aswell as a lab site, so I don’t think we are talking aboutnot having a presence there. The question will be whatis the best way of delivering services.

Q117 Mr Williams: When you talk of Carmarthen,are you referring to Aberystwyth as well?Catherine Brown: The question was aboutCarmarthen; so, no, I was referring to Carmarthen.One of the things that we are looking at across theboard is how to get the best benefit. You need localfield staff, locally based, so we will need field staffand vets in Aberystwyth, and maybe in other placeswhere we do not have them yet in order to improvethe service. Whether that means we need dedicatedsites is a different question.

Q118 Mr Williams: What is the future ofparasitology? You talked about the specialisms ofAberystwyth, but what is their future?Catherine Brown: We are looking at parasitologyacross the piece. We do not have deep expertise inparasitology.

Q119 Mr Williams: You said that there was inAberystwyth.Catherine Brown: Yes. We have a key person who isour “intelligent customer” for parasitology when weput work out of the agency. We are looking topersuade that person to input into Shrewsbury, and wewill be looking to training other people.One of the risks with the current model is that wehave individuals—on their own, nearly—who know alot of things that it is very difficult to get out of themand into the wider organisation. Having them togetherin big groups will help with that.




Mr Paice: When these proposals first came to me, myinitial reaction was to seek assurance that no post-mortem facilities were at that stage being proposed forclosure. What worries most farmers, and it certainlyworries the general public, is the idea that potentiallyinfected carcases or parts of carcases are being carriedall over the country. It was Catherine’s assurance thatthose post-mortem facilities would remain in placethat persuaded me not to intervene—not that I strictlyhave the powers to intervene anyway.Coming to your point about assurances on Carmarthenand Aberystwyth, or anywhere else, the assurance thatI would give you stands. We do not want carcases orparts of carcases being carted all over the place. Itshould be convenient for farmers or their veterinarysurgeons, and, while we cannot make guaranteesabout individual current facilities, the ability to havepost-mortems done in a relatively convenient locationis very important to farmers.

Q120 Chair: Minister, another of the concerns thathas been raised is that, if all the testing is being donesomewhere else, say, at Shrewsbury, is there not adanger that the people working there are likely to beslightly biased or in favour of dealing more quicklywith samples from the local area than with samplesthat have come in from Wales? I am not suggestingthat they are going to say, “That’s from Wales, sowe’ll put it to the back of the queue.” However, itmight be that the face-to-face relationships that existwith local vets might make it easier for people livingin those areas to have their samples done morequickly.Mr Paice: In most of the laboratories that I havevisited, the samples only have numbers anyway, so,even if that bias existed, it would not be easy topractise. I do not really envisage it happening.

Q121 Chair: People certainly have these fears andconcerns, which need allaying.Mr Paice: Of course.

Q122 Chair: They are worried, too, about transportand the speed with which samples can be delivered tolaboratories in England. Would you consider givingmuch more detailed information about how thesethings would work, such as timings, transport and soon, in order to allay some of the fears that peoplehave?Catherine Brown: I don’t see why not. Because weare having specialist centres, different things will goto different places, but I don’t see a problem inpublishing an outline of how things should work.

Q123 Chair: Minister, do you foresee this leading toa better service overall or simply giving us the sameservice but delivered at a slightly cheaper price tothe taxpayer?Mr Paice: Catherine may have a specific answer, but,if I may, I shall make a general answer. We are in the

process of making pretty dramatic changes to thewhole way we go about animal health and welfare. Ifully appreciate that it is not the same in Wales, butin England we have developed the new Animal Healthand Welfare Board. Experts from outside are now onthe inside of the decision-making process; effectively,they will advise us on disease control and animalwelfare policies in England. Obviously, Wales is adifferent issue, but I am convinced that that will makea dramatic change to the way in which we go aboutour work of surveillance and prevention and so on.The board has met only once. It has only just beenformed, so it is early days for making convincingpredictions, but its whole purpose is to have a radicalre-look at how we go about doing all this and what,indeed, the policies are themselves. They need to bechallenged as some of them have been in existencefor a long while. We need to see whether there arebetter policies or a better way of delivering themwhich may or may not be more cost-effective. That,however, is further down the line.Yes, it is all about the whole concept of improvingwhat we do and ensuring that the industry feels thatit has ownership of disease management and controlpolicies and, therefore, that the decisions taken by theboard, via me as the responsible Minister, will be onesthat the industry, we hope, is much more comfortablewith in the future. I accept that that does not apply toWales. If the Welsh Government want to set up sucha board, that would be for them to do.

Q124 Chair: That sounds very good, but I just thinkthat some of the Welsh farmers we deal with are goingto be saying to us, “Is this going to lead to a betterservice overall for us in Wales, or will it simply bethe same service at a cheaper rate, or even a lesserservice at a cheaper rate?” What should we tell thosefarmers?Catherine Brown: It won’t be a lesser service at alower rate. At worst case, it will be the same and wewill save some money, and we will aim to make itbetter where we can.3

Chair: Thank you very much.

3 Note by witness: This is true in as much as the scanningsurveillance service will be no worse than it currently is:there will be no increase to the risk of new and re-emergingthreats going undetected as a result of these changes tolaboratory services. And it is also the case that we willcontinue to meet our current published standards forturnaround times for diagnostic test results. However,because we currently have so much under-utilised capacityin our Welsh laboratories, people may have historicallyexperienced a quicker turnaround than our published targetservice level for some tests. So in some cases individualsmay experience a less speedy service for some tests. Itremains the case however, that in some cases they will gettheir results more quickly than they would have donehistorically because of the introduction of Saturday workingacross the laboratory network.



Written evidence submitted by the National Farmers’ Union Wales

1. NFU Cymru welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committeeevidence session on the future of AHVLA Veterinary Laboratories in Wales. We look forward to supportingthis written evidence orally at a meeting of the committee on 23 November. NFU Cymru represents 22,380farmers, managers and partners in agricultural businesses including those with an interest in farming andthe countryside.

2. It is with some concern that we read reports in the media in early September of plans to cease laboratoryactivity at eight AHVLA sites throughout the UK, of particular concern to NFU Cymru was the news thatthe only two AHVLA laboratories currently operating in Wales namely Carmarthen and Aberystwyth areunder threat.

3. Whilst we understand that Government budgets are under enormous pressure and that throughoutGovernment measures have to be implemented to reduce cost and improve efficiencies, our concern is focusedon ensuring that the current delivery of veterinary services provided by AHVLA to the livestock industry inWales will not be impacted by the proposed changes.

4. The services provided by AHVLA laboratories play a crucial role in securing the health and welfare ofour livestock and their worth has been shown in recent times in helping Government and industry cope with anumber of notifiable disease outbreaks. Whilst testing for diseases such as Foot and Mouth, Classical SwineFever, Fowl Pest, Bluetongue and Avian Flu takes place at Central reference laboratories, AHVLA laboratorieshave had an important role to play in dealing with confirmed outbreaks. We believe that the laboratories inWales were used extensively to deal with sampling and analysis during the height of the BSE crisis.

5. The role and work of staff at AHVLA laboratories working closely with farmers and local vets in helpingto ensure the rapid diagnosis of animal diseases cannot be underestimated. AHVLA staff and facilities have akey role to play in spotting new and emerging diseases and disease patterns that could have a major welfareand/or economic impact on the livestock industry.

6. As a result of the concerns highlighted above NFU Cymru wrote to the Chief Executive of the AHVLAon 8 September, we received a response to that letter on 15 September and as a follow up we met with theAHVLA Director, Wales of the AHVLA Veterinary Director on 19 October.

7. Following discussions with AHVLA we received assurances that the AHVLA are taking very seriouslythe need to maintain and if possible improve the level of service it can offer to farmers and private vets. Weare keen for AHVLA to explore in detail how greater use could be made of the expertise and facilities availablewithin the AHVLA, in particular the possibility of making it easier for farmers and private vets to submitsamples to AHVLA facilities. This could be achieved via collection directly from the farm/vet practice,provided that the cost of delivering this service is not prohibitive to farmers. Any savings made on efficiencies/rationalisation must be rechanneled into improving the level of service to the industry.

8. We would wish that farmers wherever they are located should receive the same opportunity and servicelevels from AHVLA, hopefully this review can achieve that. We would also seek re-assurance that anycentralisation of services will not in any way delay test results being returned to the farmer/private vet and thattesting and diagnosis will not be compromised as a result of the time taken to get samples to centralisedlaboratory facilities.

9. Farmers and Private Veterinary Practices also value the expertise of staff within AHVLA at the twocentres currently operating in Wales, many of the staff are well known to both farmers and vets and spend timehelping, advising and attending meetings in Wales discussing disease prevention and control. NFU Cymru isconcerned that any potential downgrading of the services on offer at the two centres in Wales could impact onthis interaction between AHVLA and the Industry; we would like to seek assurance that this will not bethe case and that appropriately qualified AHVLA staff will continue to support and advise farmers and vetsin Wales.

10. Whilst this review is being completed by AHVLA on an England and Wales basis, we must not forgetthat Animal Health and Welfare in Wales is a devolved matter and increasingly the policies and priorities ofthe Welsh Government are differing form those of DEFRA. We would like to also receive assurance that theloss of Government laboratory facilities from Wales will not have longer term consequences for Wales. Wethink it important that the Welsh Government consider this matter and make known their views.

11. To conclude NFU Cymru are concerned at the loss of laboratory services from Wales, we have soughtassurances from AHVLA that this review will have minimal effect on the level of service currently providedby AHVLA and that as part of this review AHVLA are looking at opportunities to improve the level of servicethey offer to industry. The service and expertise provided by AHVLA laboratories and the staff operatingwithin them in helping to ensure rapid diagnosis of disease and in devising strategies to remove and preventre-infection cannot be underestimated. We hope that the Welsh Affairs Committee will be able to obtainassurance from AHVLA that any changes to the current AHVLA structure will be to benefit not detriment ofthe Welsh Livestock industry.

November 2011



Written evidence submitted by the Farmers’ Union of Wales

Summary

1. When assessing the overall performance of regional AHVLA centres, several factors must be taken intoaccount. The value of the services provided, the impact of the loss of such services and the relative cost-benefit trade-off between any financial expense and the tangible benefits gleaned. Differences in regional centrecapabilities and requirements must also be evaluated in order to account for the suitability of each role andresponsibility in different locations.

2. Aberystwyth AHVLA currently acts as a referral laboratory for diagnostically difficult parasitic diseases.The FUW believes that the decommissioning of laboratory testing at this regional centre could lead to anoverall reduction in AHVLA parasitological expertise.

3. The FUW is concerned that, without proper and pre-determined transition measures, the decommissioningof laboratory testing at Luddington could disrupt Interferon Gamma testing in Wales and could impinge on thesuccess of the Welsh bTB eradication programme.

4. Cost savings estimates must consider any increases in the number of samples being sent off-site fortesting. The number of samples sent off-site may be shaped by the decommissioning of those tests currentlyperformed simultaneously with other post-mortem activities in Welsh regional laboratories.

5. AHVLA laboratory services function to identify specific animal diseases via post-mortem examinationsand also contribute to pan-GB disease surveillance (scanning/early warning surveillance) through the testingof samples received directly from veterinary practitioners. Whilst the present proposals do not affect thelocation of post mortem facilities, veterinary investigation officer activities and existing surveillanceprogrammes, the FUW is extremely concerned that these decommissioning proposals represent the first in aseries of changes and notes that the future of all AHVLA works will be reviewed at a later date. Any furtherdecommissioning of AHVLA services, including veterinary investigation officer activities, could have asignificant impact on disease surveillance capabilities in Wales.

6. Whilst the present proposals are not expected to substantially affect the overall ability of livestock keepersto access AHVLA products and services, the FUW is concerned that the decommissioning of laboratory testingin Wales may result in a two-tier service which disadvantages Welsh farmers under specific circumstances.

Submitter Biography

Dr Hazel Wright, Senior Policy Officer, Farmers’ Union of Wales

7. Dr Hazel Wright possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from the University of Glasgow anda PhD in Parasitology from Aberystwyth University. Hazel was appointed as the FUW’s Commodities PolicyOfficer in 2008 and was promoted to the position of Senior Policy Officer in 2010. Prior to this appointment,she was involved in post-doctoral research projects encompassing a wide range of topics; including host-parasite interactions, energy budgets and trade-offs and parasite proteomics. Such projects included aninvestigation into the survival mechanisms of the sheep liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica and an examination ofthe ways in which parasite infection can alter the carcase quality of the host under a variety of feeding andgrowth regimes. Hazel has published in a variety of peer reviewed scientific journals and has a strong interestin disease biology. Hazel represents the Union on various groups such as the Action Group for Johne’s diseaseand the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Steering Committee.

Introduction and Background

8. The Farmers’ Union of Wales was established in 1955 to protect and advance the interests of Welshfamilies who derive an income from agriculture. The Union has 11 offices distributed around Wales whichprovide a broad range of services for members. The FUW is a democratic organisation, with policies beingformulated following consultation with its 12 County Executive Committees and nine Standing Committees.

9. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) was formed on 1 April 2011 followingthe merger of Animal Health with the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The role of the AHVLA is to “helpsafeguard animal health and welfare and public health, protect the economy and enhance food security throughresearch, surveillance and inspection”. These wide-reaching and high impact roles are currently undertakenvia sixteen regional laboratories.

10. Under the present proposals, all AHVLA laboratory services testing and research will be decommissionedin Wales with a view to being redistributed from Carmarthen and Aberystwyth AHVLA to laboratories at BurySt Edmunds, Lasswade, Newcastle, Penrith, Shrewsbury, Starcross, Sutton Bonington, and Weybridge. Testingservices at AHVLA Luddington, which is the only centre presently performing Interferon Gamma (g-IFN)testing, will also be decommissioned by 2013.

Views from the Farmers’ Union of Wales

11. The “decommissioning” of laboratory services in Carmarthen and Aberystwyth would be both costly andlogistically difficult to re-establish if and when required. It is therefore essential that moves to redistribute



AHVLA regional responsibilities recognises the current strengths of each of the regional centres chosen toundertake laboratory testing in the future. Any redistribution must make use of the specialist knowledge andexpertise presently available at each of the regional centres in order to retain efficiency and quality of service.It is imperative that any redistribution is not met with a reduction in testing confidence.

12. The AHVLA centre based at Aberystwyth currently acts as a parasitology referral laboratory for otherregional AHVLA laboratories and staff at this regional centre are also involved in training AHVLA staff fromother locations. Diagnostically difficult parasitological diseases may be referred to AHVLA Aberystwyth fordefinitive identification and the in-house expertise and experience of laboratory testing staff at AHVLAAberystwyth has proven to be an excellent source of peer knowledge transfer. The parasitological expertiseavailable at AHVLA Aberystwyth is further evidenced in that such staff were responsible for the developmentof a differential stain analysis technique which allows for the differentiation of Haemonchus spp. nematodeparasite eggs from other parasite eggs in the strongyloides family. Prior to the development of this technique,definitive identification could only be achieved by identification of the larval stage of infection. Identificationof the larval stage is a more lengthy process due to the time required to reach this developmental stagefollowing egg hatching.

13. The FUW is therefore concerned that any decommissioning of roles and responsibilities, and theirsubsequent redistribution, could lead to an overall reduction in AHVLA parasitological research anddevelopment due to voluntary/compulsory redundancy, and a lack of invaluable expertise due to personnelbeing unable to relocate to new premises.

14. At present, all common laboratory testing pertaining to parasitology and bacteriology, is undertaken in-house at Aberystwyth and Carmarthen AHVLA as and when such samples are received. Common andinexpensive laboratory testing techniques include faecal eggs counts and bacterial cultures and these techniquescontribute to the swift identification of several causative agents of disease. The ability of AHVLA Aberystwythand AHVLA Carmarthen to test for agents of disease in-house and at “real time” during a post mortemexamination is a service which provides significant benefits. A diagnosis obtained during post-mortem can beimmediately phoned or faxed to the veterinary practitioner responsible and the results subsequently reported tothe livestock keeper. Where the disease in question is short in clinical duration, highly contagious and oftenfatal, a reduction in the time between post-mortem and disease diagnosis directly leads to a reduction in thetime lapsed before a treatment is administered. This can reduce the number of on-farm cases and has obviouseconomic and welfare benefits. For example, “Blackleg” is an infectious and usually rapidly fatal bacterialmusculoskeletal disease of cattle. At present, both AHVLA Aberystwyth and AHVLA Carmarthen can conductlaboratory testing for Blackleg in-house. The causative agent, Clostridium chauvoei, can survive well in thesoil environment and most cases of Blackleg occur in youngstock aged between six months and two years.Rapid diagnosis is essential to allow prophylactic administration of penicillin and/or vaccination of remainingstock. A delay of just 24 hours can have implications for the number of stock infected. Blackleg is commonlydiagnosed as the causative agent of disease by numerous AHVLA laboratories.1

15. The FUW is concerned that the decommissioning of AHVLA laboratory testing in Wales would resultin a “two-tier” service where the speed of diagnosis is dependent on the provenance of the farm premise. Underthe present proposals, no laboratory services testing will be undertaken in Wales and the FUW thereforebelieves that farmers residing in Wales will receive a reduction in service when compared to the status quo.

16. In many cases, in-house tests conducted at the time of a post-mortem examination may themselves shapethe route of the post-mortem being undertaken. For example, the ability to diagnose a parasitic infection via asimple faecal egg count will provide confirmation of the causative agent of disease and will often lessen theneed for further sample testing. The decommissioning of all laboratory testing in Wales may serve to befinancially inefficient as a lack of in-house testing will reduce regional diagnosis of common diseases andcould necessitate a greater number of samples being sent off-site for testing.

17. The FUW recognises that other laboratory testing, pertaining to areas such as serology andhistopathology, is already undertaken at other regional laboratories. The Union therefore expects no significantdisruption to these services under the present proposals.

18. Although the Tuberculin test remains the primary ante-mortem diagnostic test for bovine Tuberculosis(bTB), Interferon Gamma (g-IFN) has proven to be a useful ancillary tool in bTB detection due to its highsensitivity. Highly specialist knowledge gleaned through years of experience is required to successfullyundertake laboratory based g-IFN testing and maintaining the current level of g-IFN expertise is essential aspart of an over-arching and holistic bTB eradication programme. Proposals to relocate g-IFN laboratory testingfrom AHVLA Luddington (Phase 2), which is the only regional centre currently possessing the capability toconduct g-IFN testing, are therefore of concern to the FUW. Under the proposals, Luddington AHVLA willcease g-IFN testing from March 2013 and it is imperative that pre-determined systems are in place to aid thetransfer of this work to another laboratory and to ensure that testing quality is maintained in order to ensureconfidence in the results obtained. Any delays during the bTB diagnostic process can have severe emotionaland financial implications for farmers experiencing a bTB breakdown and the use of g-IFN in persistentlyaffected and/or high prevalence herds is an essential component of bTB diagnostics. It is therefore imperativethat any redistribution of g-IFN testing between AHVLA regional centres maintains sufficient overall levels of1 AHVLA monthly scanning surveillance report, July 2011.



experienced personnel and that no delays or disruptions occur during the redistribution of such works. Thisis especially pertinent given that blood samples must be g-IFN tested within 24 hours of being collectedpost-mortem.

19. At present, both the slaughter and post-mortem of a large proportion of the cattle annually culled inWales due to bTB occurs in close vicinity to the Carmarthen AHVLA laboratory. AHVLA Carmarthen istherefore well placed to conduct bTB culture tests in Wales and the FUW is concerned that the proposal torelocate all bTB culture testing from Carmarthen AHVLA to English centres may have implications whichadversely impact the post-mortem detection of bTB.

20. The FUW notes that, under the above decommissioning and redistribution proposals, veterinary officeractivities and post mortems will continue to be serviced via the regional laboratories in Aberystwyth andCarmarthen. Provenance remains an essential factor in the delivery of efficient and reliable veterinary andscientific related goods and services from the AHVLA. Some of the activities undertaken by regionallaboratories would become unviable if the local aspect of this service was decommissioned. For example, anincrease in the distance required to bring livestock for post-mortem testing would likely result in a substantialreduction in the number of animals being post-mortem tested. Post-mortem testing is an essential componentof disease surveillance and disease surveillance is critical to the both the Welsh farming industry and the WelshGovernment in order to keep abreast of new and emerging diseases and new presentations of endemic diseases.

21. The FUW recognises that, under the present proposals, post-mortems will continue to be undertaken atboth regional centres in Wales, with the supporting laboratory testing being carried out off site. The FUW isconcerned that the relocation of such laboratory testing could have a detrimental effect on early diseasediagnosis, and would thus function to increase both the emotional and financial costs of an animal diseaseoutbreak. Early diagnosis is essential in order to reduce the vulnerability of Wales to a large scale diseaseoutbreak and has implications for both animal and public health.

22. Reported cost savings accrued by the cessation of regional laboratory testing reportedly lie in the regionof 2.4 million pounds per annum. The FUW would seek assurances that consideration has been offered to thepotential impact of increased sample testing in certain laboratories and the increased use of private laboratories.

November 2011

Written evidence submitted by Prospect

Prospect is the recognised trade union which represents all scientific, technical and administration staffemployed in the delivery of Laboratory Services, which support Veterinary Surveillance both at Carmarthenand Aberysthwyth Regional Laboratory sites.

On 1 September AHVLA announced its proposals to close its Laboratory Services both at Carmarthen andAberystwyth, with effect from 31 March 2013. The closure of these laboratory services will result in 14 joblosses at both of these sites (four at Aberystwyth and 10 and Carmarthen). AHVLA has stated that thesesavings are necessary as a direct result of the reduction in DEFRA funding in line with the Government’sinitiative to reduce public spending. These proposals received ministerial approval on 15 September, but thefinal announcement was not made public until 22 September.

As a consequence of this decision AHVLA now propose to transfer the laboratory services currentlyundertaken at these laboratories to the remaining regional laboratories, and the main bulk of the samples fromthe Welsh Laboratories will be sent to Shrewsbury. Staff have been told that there will be no ability to transferwith the work, but they will have the ability to apply for redeployment if posts become available. In practice,given the considerable geographical distances involved, it is very unlikely that staff at both of these laboratorieswill be seeking to relocate and therefore valuable scientific expertise will be lost.

The main argument for the proposed laboratory closures is that there is currently an over-capacity oflaboratory facilities and that throughput of samples for analysis has declined over the past 10 years. For thesereasons AHVLA wants to consolidate its laboratory services by providing “specialist” testing at each of itsremaining laboratory sites, which they believe will provide a more efficient and expert service to both privateveterinarians and the local farming community.

Concerns Raised by Prospect on these Proposals

Whilst Prospect is well aware of the difficulties that AHVLA is currently facing in achieving an £8 millionreduction in spending year on year within the lifetime of this Parliament, we have questioned whether theseproposals are in the best interests of its stakeholders and whether consideration could be given to alternativeproposals that would not so adversely affect the delivery of front line services.

1. Link between Veterinary Surveillance and Laboratory Services

AHVLA’s justification for closing laboratory services in eight Regional Laboratories is predicated upon theirSustainable Surveillance Project Report (ASSP) which identifies the need “for a continued, quality-assured,laboratory-based surveillance network in England and Wales but also recommended that the post-mortem



examination of carcasses which makes up a critical aspect of this surveillance work, be ‘de-coupled’ from theco-location of post-mortem facilities with laboratory services functions at the same site.” Although the reportdid go on to categorise what tests needed to be close to the Post Mortem facilities.2 We have not yet receivedthe detailed recommendations of AHVLA’s Veterinary Surveillance Review, but we have been told that this isunlikely to be published until the New Year, so we do not yet know what, if any, Regional Laboratory sitesmay be under threat of closure.

However, all staff at each of the Regional Laboratory sites believe that the provision of Laboratory servicesare intrinsically linked to Veterinary Surveillance and that there is a minimum service that needs to be providedon site to provide valuable data for meaningful surveillance to continue.

The relationship between laboratory testing and veterinary surveillance is symbiotic. The ability to detectNew and Emerging Disease relies both on good effective lines of communication between the PVS (PrivateVeterinary Surgeon) and the ability to differentiate between the routine and the unusual. The RegionalVeterinary Laboratories (RLs) have a close working relationship with practitioners. The present system, whichis driven by the diagnostic capability of RLs, allows private vets to phone their local laboratory to discusscases and potential laboratory submissions. This is an essential part of surveillance and extends surveillancecoverage beyond samples which come through the laboratory. The two-way communication provides RegionalLaboratories with a niche position as an interface between the farm and the laboratory. Credible expert advicemeans that vets will call RLs to discuss the new and unusual. If the ability to provide a diagnostic service ora reduction in expertise is perceived then this niche will be irreversibly lost. For this reason, the RLs need tomaintain a high volume of diagnostic submissions. The loss of laboratories close to farm animal practices willpotentially weaken the RLs/PVS partnership. If their regional lab is not doing the front line basic testing thenthey have less need to phone and discuss their cases with their local VIOs. The relationships with practiceswhich have been built up over many years may be irreversibly damaged.

2. Need for benchmark—minimum service required Bacteriology and Parasitology

Both Veterinary and Scientific staffs believe that the minimum service that needs to be maintained on site isboth bacteriology and parasitology testing. This provides the main throughput of the majority of analysis thatis required to be undertaken on a routine basis. Members fully acknowledge that a number of samples arealready dispatched to other regional laboratories with specialised equipment eg Biochemistry at Shrewsburyetc when analysis is required and we would not question that this should continue. Our principle argument isthat the main throughput of samples for analysis relates to the above and that speed in diagnosis is crucial inpreventing either the spread of infections/diseases/potential Zoonoses.

Veterinary Surveillance staff are also concerned about the loss of expertise in the diagnosis of exotic diseasesor infections that are not routinely encountered. Surveillance teams are heavily reliant on laboratory servicesand they believe that these proposed changes will compromise their ability to diagnose disease and it willreduce the quality of farm animal surveillance, including detection of new and emerging diseases andzoonotic incidents.

3. Delays in diagnosis of diseases

This decision will now mean that it will be necessary to forward samples for bacteriology and parasitologywhich would otherwise have been tested immediately. This will introduce a minimum 24-hour delay. Membersbelieve that a delay in testing will compromise animal welfare, AHVLA scientific reputation and will increasedisease prevalence (and zoonotic risk (eg EAE [Chlamydia infection], salmonellosis, cryptosporidium, Q fever,Brucella, anthrax).

There has been little or no work undertaken on the time delays in getting samples analysed. All of thelaboratories are stating that any delay in processing samples will result in a decrease in sensitivity of any testscarried out. The longer the delay the less likely they are able to culture the organism causing disease. Samplescould deteriorate rapidly in the post, making them unsuitable for bacteriology. This is validated by the conditionof those post-mortem samples that laboratories currently receive in the post from private veterinarian, whichare often unsalvageable and useless. Whilst we accept that under certain circumstances it may be necessary topost samples for example from on farm post mortems where it was impossible to get the whole animal in forpost mortem examination this should not be the norm. Optimum sample types for delayed testing of at least a72-hour delay have not been established and this must be evaluated before such a system is implemented.Equally there is no quality audit data available on the in-built delays in testing that will now occur as a resultof this decision.

There are real concerns that any requirement for either farmers or private veterinarians to prepare andpackage samples for analysis will deter many from investigating diseases germane to promoting good animalhealth. Staff who work in Laboratory Services currently prepare all samples delivered to them and, as indicatedabove many are in a very poor condition, before they can be documented or dispatched for analysis. It is notclear whether this investment will be continued to the current high standard by Private Veterinarians or thatthey will simply be sent to the cheapest laboratory for analysis further undermining the role of surveillance.2 AHVLA Sustainable Surveillance Project, Sustainable Scanning Surveillance in England and Wales, April 2011, Appendix 10,

para 2.



4. Loss of Scientific Expertise

Many staff at sites earmarked for lab closure are highly skilled. Bacteriology is an acquired discipline andit takes many years to build up this expertise. Veterinary bacteriology is not a readily transferrable skill andrequires specialist interpretation of tests usually designed for human bacteriology. This skill must be retainedwithin the AHVLA.

Divorcing the Laboratory Services Department from the Veterinary Services Department at an ex-VLA siteis bad for maintaining scientific expertise and skill of the veterinary staff who value the professional interactionwith scientific colleagues immeasurably. Vets left without laboratory back up will be isolated.

If the technician is not in attendance during the post mortem or in close contact with the VIO, they will beunaware of the gross pathology and therefore what specific isolates might be suspected. These potential isolatesmay then be overlooked by remote laboratories if the subsequent cultures are mixed or contaminated.

This may result in more “back-up” testing in case a diagnosis is not reached with the first round of samples.Is this economic when you consider veterinary time and the cost of time for packaging and posting?

This scientific expertise is essential for detecting new and emerging disease and responding adequately tooutbreaks of disease.

5. Negative effect on farming industry

Private veterinarians and farmers within the catchment areas of the affected labs are likely to see this as aclear message that they are not important, eroding the trust and continuity of care which has been builtup between the regional laboratories and the agricultural community, upon which good quality surveillanceis based.

The lines of communication between private and VLs vets are essential for effective cost efficientsurveillance. This working relationship has taken years to build up. Private veterinarians will phone their localVeterinary Investigation Officers (VIOs) to discuss cases and possibly send in samples having been directedby the VIO. By removing the laboratory, the PVS is less likely to phone in these cases. It is a two wayprocess—they get information about disease and diagnosis and whether to send in a PM or samples and theVLs are informed of what is going on at farm level. This aids early detection of a new and emerging syndrome.

We believe that we are in danger of creating irreversible change with the potential outcome damaging andcostly. It is a well-known fact that it costs so much less to prevent disease than to deal with the consequences.The ASSP report stated that the cost of surveillance was £10 million per year with cost benefits of £200million. It makes no sense to risk jeopardising this system for savings of £2.4 million.

The proposed geographical distribution of laboratories across the country is uneven and does not reflect theneed for post-mortem side testing. Large agricultural areas will not have adequate coverage for diagnosis.

Carmarthen Laboratory Services/Aberystwyth—Personal Views from the Members/Staff— Carmarthen Regional Laboratory site is well located with excellent road links and accessibility from

the livestock dense farming areas it serves.

— The surrounding area has a high density of cattle (particularly dairy) and sheep farms.

— This laboratory serves an excess of 30 practices across the whole of south and west Wales. Many ofthe local practices deliver their own samples to the laboratory.

— The high local stocking density of animals means that the laboratory is well situated for farmers todeliver carcasses, or samples from their animals when advised by their Veterinary Surgeons. In urgentcircumstances the good transport links enable farmers to deliver samples from a wider area to obtaina quicker result.

— Dispatching hand-delivered sample or samples from post mortems will result in a delay of at least24 hours if not longer. The risk of deterioration of posted samples will potentially be an issueparticularly in summer resulting in a much poorer service to private veterinarians and farmers in oneof the most important livestock farming areas in Wales and the UK and also poorer welfare for welshanimals could result.

— The importance of local knowledge and contact with the farming community cannot be over-emphasised, something that cannot happen when the nearest laboratory facility is over 100 milesaway and non-Welsh speaking.

— The laboratory has always been a focal point for veterinary disease surveillance for the local farmingcommunity and is well used and appreciated. This is evident and has been illustrated by the amountof supportive publicity that staff have received in the local press and from farmers and veterinarypractitioners alike, since the announcement was made. There is a petition circulating the localpractices in support of retaining laboratory testing at Carmarthen.

— Closure of laboratory services will potentially lead to fewer submissions being submitted from Waleswith resulting loss of important disease surveillance information.



— Carmarthen was involved in testing Welsh farm samples in the 2005 E.coli 0157 outbreak. Also staffwere involved in the 2001 Foot and Mouth disease outbreak on Welsh farms and around this timestaff were also involved in pioneering work in developing a BSE test. This demonstrates thelaboratory’s rapid response to any disease crisis within Wales.

— Several hotspots of bovine TB exist in Wales. Eradication by badger culling has been suggested inan area of West Wales, should this option go ahead. The laboratory is well placed to handle badgercarcasses and sample delivery. The Laboratory is also in an area of high prevalence of liver flukedisease and timely local diagnosis leads to prompt treatment.

— The Carmarthen Regional Laboratory Service is exceptional in the years of service accumulated byits highly experienced laboratory staff. The loss of such expertise and accumulated knowledge couldnot be replaced if these staff members are forced to leave their current specialist roles.

— Carmarthen has the only containment level 3 laboratory in AHVLA Wales, which is essential for TBtesting work and to deal with other category 3 pathogens.

— Aberystwyth is already a Laboratory of excellence specializing in parasitology.

November 2011

Written evidence submitted by the British Veterinary Association

1. The British Veterinary Association (BVA) is the national representative body for the veterinary professionin the United Kingdom and has over 12,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interestsof the veterinary profession in this country, and it therefore takes a keen interest in all issues affecting theveterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health, regulatory issues or employmentconcerns.

2. This response has been prepared jointly with the BVA’s Welsh Branch, which brings together veterinaryrepresentatives of the BVA’s territorial and specialist divisions, government, academic institutions and researchorganisations in Wales.

3. The BVA has a number of concerns regarding the proposed changes to be made to veterinary laboratoryservices throughout Great Britain, but we are particularly concerned about the potential for a complete loss oflaboratory services in Wales post-2013. Although we can appreciate the need to deliver these services moreefficiently in the current economic climate, this should not be at the expense of disease surveillance and control.

4. Whilst the initial phases of the programme appear not to include imminent closure of any laboratories orany veterinary redundancies, we believe that the loss of scientific colleagues and their relative expertise couldhave a knock-on effect. It is important to recognise the wealth of local knowledge and expertise, whichcolleagues at the Welsh laboratories have built up over the years, and which has provided an irreplaceablefoundation for research into the epidemiology of disease situations in the areas concerned. The loss of testingfacilities in Carmarthen and Aberystwyth will mean the loss of the expertise that plays such a critical role insupporting disease control for local practices and in maintaining good disease surveillance. We are concernedthat the private sector would not be willing to make the long-term investments needed to fill this gap and tobuild and maintain the veterinary pathology expertise essential for the detection of new and emerging diseases,many of which will have zoonotic implications.

5. The proposals refer to the redistribution of laboratory services involving testing, research and developmentwork away from Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. For example, Carmarthen currently processes bovine TBsamples from the three approved abattoirs in Wales, which handle TB reactors. As we understand it, this willmean that the expertise needed to process bovine TB samples, which was previously devolved, will now beremoved and samples will be processed outside of Wales. We believe that this could result in potential delaysin the processing of and the reporting on submitted samples. The processing of samples from TB reactor cattleis one piece of the jigsaw that makes up the One Wales TB Eradication Programme introduced by the WelshAssembly Government in 2008. The programme places emphasis on timelines including the elimination ofunnecessary delays at every stage of the TB testing process. This would include prompt processing of samplestaken from TB reactor cattle.

6. Our members have raised a number of questions in relation to the impact of the proposals on theturnaround times for non-testing centres, and the level of carcase-side testing that will be able to be maintained.If samples are to be processed centrally, then AHVLA should provide evidence that deterioration of samplesen route to the remaining testing sites can be prevented and that turnaround times can be maintained. We feelthat assurances are needed that the proposed changes will result in a service that at least matches the currentlevels in terms of quality and reporting times, otherwise, a poorer service at the same or increased cost willsoon cause a reduction in submissions.

7. Although we note that the current AHVLA proposals state that post-mortem examinations will continueto be provided by the existing laboratory sites in Wales a review will be undertaken of the best way to deliverthis work in the future. As alluded to above, our main concern is that this review will result in the eventualclosure of these laboratories which we believe would be a backwards step in disease control and surveillancein Wales. With a poor road structure in Wales, we are concerned that the added time that farmers would have



to spend travelling to deliver carcases if the Welsh laboratories were lost might be prohibitive and could resultin a drop in submissions. We remain to be convinced that submissions will not fall if these proposals areimplemented and feel that further information is needed to describe how sufficient samples will be collectedto satisfy surveillance requirements. Overall we believe that the proposals may have an impact on the abilityof the Welsh Government to retain a meaningful database of farm animal disease.

8. The Chief Veterinary Officers of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have direct access to regionallaboratories, and the CVO of Wales also requires a dedicated resource to meet the Welsh Government’srequirements.

November 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

— On 1 September 2011, AHVLA announced plans to reorganise its Regional Laboratory (RL) structureto enable savings of approximately £2.4 million per annum;

— The restructure does not close any sites because surveillance and post mortems will continue at allsites at present, but does rely on the rationalisation of laboratory services work from 16 laboratoriescurrently to eight by 2013. Both the Welsh laboratories, in Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, are affectedby this rationalisation;

— Implementation will be in two phases; phase one to be completed by 31 March 2012 and phase two(which includes the two Welsh laboratories) to be completed by 31 March 2013.

Introduction

1. This Memorandum sets out Defra’s response to the issues identified by the Committee for its one-offevidence session to investigate the future of AHVLA Regional Laboratories in Wales.

2. The AHVLA Regional Laboratory network covers England and Wales. The total number of tests carriedout by AHVLA Regional Laboratories, the central laboratory and the science department in Weybridge in the12 month period to September 2011, was 1,016,342. Of these, just 18,176 or 1.8% were performed by the twoWelsh Regional Laboratories.

3. It focuses on: why the decision was made; the process by which the decision was made; the impact thedecision might have on the monitoring and detection of animal disease in Wales; and the impact of changes inAHVLA on staff numbers in Wales.

Why was the Decision made to Rationalise Laboratory Services?

4. AHVLA has to make more than £8.5 million of cash releasing savings each year for the next four yearsto meet Spending Review allocations (cumulative £34 million). The 2010 Defra led GB wide review ofsurveillance (including laboratory testing and post mortem and other aspects) identified that savings needed tobe made in this area by thinking about changing models of delivery.

5. Given this, before the new Agency was created, the Shadow Executive Team initiated a review ofsurveillance to identify what a new more cost effective model might look like. The CVO Wales was involvedas a member of that review, which was led by Defra’s senior epidemiologist.

6. In April 2011, the AHVLA Sustainable Surveillance Project (ASSP) report identified the need for acontinued, quality-assured, laboratory-based surveillance network in England and Wales. However, the reportalso recommended that the post mortem examination of carcasses, which makes up a critical aspect ofsurveillance work, be “de-coupled” from the provision of laboratory services functions. The reviewrecommended that laboratory testing could be carried out in locations other than those used to carry out postmortems—a conclusion also independently arrived at by the recent Scottish review of surveillance.

7. The majority of tests have been carried out at sites other than the post mortem site for several years andthe model of totally de-coupling laboratory services and post mortem work has been used successfully at theuniversity veterinary school surveillance centres in Liverpool and London and, since October 2010, at theNewcastle AHVLA laboratory site, where the majority of laboratory testing arising from post mortemexaminations has been carried out at the AHVLA Thirsk Regional Laboratory.

8. The total number of post mortem tests carried out in the Welsh Regional Laboratories in the 12 monthperiod to September 2011, was 1,129. This is 8.9% of the total number of post mortems carried out across theLaboratory Services Department (LSD) network.

9. The effect of this decision—to decouple lab testing from post mortem work more widely—was to enablea review of laboratory testing to identify opportunities to materially reduce the costs and increase the efficiencyof the function as quickly as possible.

10. Much of the work of the RLs is focused on providing bacteriology and parasitology testing for AHVLAsEmerging Diseases and Welfare (EDW) programme. This is the main surveillance activity for this purpose



undertaken by the agency for Defra and the Welsh Government. In addition, most of the larger sites have anarea of specialisation, eg histopathology processing, clinical chemistry, Tb culture, etc, which have beendeveloped through a process of rationalisation over some years to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness.

11. The RLs also provide significant support to other AHVLA science programmes, mainly through theprovision of specialist testing distributed around the network of laboratories, eg statutory testing for salmonella,gamma interferon testing for bovine Tb, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) rapid testing.

12. In 2006–07, the Laboratory Services Department (LSD) as a whole delivered 2.8 million tests of alltypes. By 2010–11, this number had fallen to less than a million, a reduction of 65% in test throughput. Thiswas mainly due to reductions in the funding of some of the agency’s science programmes, particularly risk-based reductions in surveillance for Statutory and Exotic Bacteria and TSE; as well as a fall in EmergingDiseases and Welfare programme funding from £8.8 million to £6.8 million.

13. In light of the CSR 2010 and the need to make further savings, a further 175,000 TSE rapid tests willbe outsourced from 1 April 2012, which means that for 2012–13, the expected total volume throughput oftests in LSD will be approximately 725,000—around 25% of the total number of tests being carried out sixyears earlier.

14. During the same period, the number of staff in LSD has fallen from 310 on 1 April 2006 to 295 on 1April 2011, a reduction of 5%. The pay cost for LSD has risen from £8.4 million in 2006–07 to £8.9 millionin 2010–11, an increase of 6%.

15. This rationalisation is based on current levels of testing after the changes outlined above. There may bescope for further reduction in laboratory capacity if demand continues to fall.

16. Following the AHVLA Executive Team approval of the recommendations of the surveillance ASSPreport, a review was established of the organisation of the Laboratory Services Department to develop proposalsto re-organise the delivery of laboratory testing in accordance with the principle of de-coupling, such that asignificant improvement in the efficiency of the department could be obtained as soon as practically possible.

17. The Laboratory Services review recommended that work be rationalised into the following sites:

— Newcastle upon Tyne, Penrith, Shrewsbury, Sutton Bonington, Starcross (Exeter), Bury St Edmunds,Weybridge and Lasswade.

With the cessation of laboratory services work in:

— Luddington, Truro, Winchester, Aberystwyth, Carmarthen, Preston, Thirsk and Langford.

18. The planned cessation of work is due to take place in two phases:

— Phase 1—starting immediately and concluding by 31 March 2012, to include the cessation oflaboratory services work in Truro, Langford and Thirsk;

— Phase 2—will be carried out in 2012–13 financial year and will include the cessation of laboratoryservices work at Aberystwyth, Carmarthen, Luddington, Preston and Winchester.

19. These changes will enable approximately £2.4 million per annum of savings with negligible impacts onservice levels.

Criteria for Selection

20. The decision to retain Laboratory Services at the sites listed in paragraph 16 was based on a number offactors including:

— the need to retain the necessary capabilities within the workforce across the network, in particularspecialist scientific and technical skills;

— the need to retain sufficient staff capacity nationally to deliver the volumes of work required;

— consideration of the facilities required to maintain services required, eg specialist laboratoryinfrastructure;

— the need to reduce the number of sites at which the department operates in order to increase efficiencyand reduce management and other overhead (equipment replacement and maintenance, quality andhealth and safety audits, etc); and

— the need to retain resilience of service delivery, eg Containment Level 3 (CL3) laboratory capacity.

21. In neither Aberystwyth nor Carmarthen are there specialist technical skills not available elsewhere in thenetwork, with the exception of some parasitology expertise in Aberystwyth. It is our intention to seek to re-deploy the relevant staff from Aberystwyth in order to retain that expertise within the network and better beable to transfer expertise to the wider team.

22. Neither Aberystwyth nor Carmarthen has any specialist laboratory infrastructure, nor do they have aspecific role in outbreak response which it is necessary to maintain in order to provide resilience in the future.It has never been the intention to rely on these two small laboratories to support Wales in the event of anoutbreak of exotic disease.



23. The Welsh labs are amongst the smallest in terms of staff numbers and are therefore costly in termsof overheads.

24. The cessation of laboratory services at Aberystwyth was originally to be part of Phase 1 in order tomaximise early benefits, however it was moved back to Phase 2 to allow more time for the appropriatearrangements to be made to ensure the successful transfer of work to other laboratories and to redeploy staffin Wales whose posts are affected.

25. The new network ensures that the Agency will retain the necessary specialist skills and capabilities todeliver the whole range of testing currently required. Tests will continue to be performed to the necessaryquality standard, as assured by the ISO17025 third party quality accreditation, independently assessed by theUnited Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). Details of the retained sites are at Annex A.

26. As well as cost savings of c£2.4 million pa, there are potential operational advantages to deliveringthrough a smaller network of the larger labs. It is easier to develop and transfer skills and expertise in largerteams doing higher volumes of a subset of tests. In addition, concentrating testing at fewer locations will allowus in some areas to speed up the process, because a “critical mass” of samples will be achieved—ie for sometesting, the process requires a certain volume of samples to be available before testing can proceed; withsamples spread more thinly over a wider network of labs, this can take a number of days to achieve, and thusdelay the production of results. The rationalisation will also enable the reintroduction of some testing work onSaturdays which will improve the standard and timeliness of some tests carried out on samples gathered at theend of the week.

The Process and Timing of Making the Decision

27. After the formation of the Agency in April 2011 there was a high degree of urgency in identifyingadditional savings to ensure that Spending Review allocations could be met in coming years. 43% of theAgency’s cost base relates to staff costs and any reductions in staff costs take many months to put into effect.

28. A time line of the decision making process is attached at Annex B.

29. In mid July the working group identified their proposals for rationalisation. On 2 August, the AHVLAexecutive team discussed and agreed the way forward.

30. The CVO Wales was advised of the changes being proposed verbally (5 August 2011) and, on 17 August2011, was sent the Laboratory Services Rationalisation Report for comment. In her response (Annex C)3

dated 22 August 2011, the CVO Wales commented as follows: “We note the recommendations in the Reportto rationalise the service AHVLA provide. It is claimed that the remaining resources in the 6 laboratories willbe sufficient to enable a similar service to that currently provided. However, your continued delivery of theservice is dependent, to a degree, upon the detailed implementation plan which has yet to be developed. It isnot our intention to provide approval for your proposal as Welsh Government officials were not involved in thedevelopment of the recommendation as this is regarded as an operational matter for AHVLA”.

31. The English Minister was briefed on 23 August 2011 and after discussion and consideration agreed theapproach on 9 September 2011

32. The business case to secure funding for releases was submitted to the Defra Local Approvals Panel(LAP) that had a scheduled meeting on 24 August 2011.

33. The LAP funding approval was conditional on staff releases taking place by the end of 2011–12 FinancialYear. Consequently, there was a need to make announcements about the changes in the laboratory servicesmodel at the beginning of September 2011 to ensure there was enough time to complete the required HRprocesses. In addition, time to work on the logistics of moving work from Phase 1 sites before 31 March 2012was of the essence.

Impact on Monitoring and Detection of Animal Disease in Wales

34. The ability to detect new and emerging diseases in Wales is unaffected by these changes.

35. All 14 RLs, including Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, continue to carry out post mortem surveillanceactivity unaffected by these proposals. A separate review of surveillance delivery options, involving AHVLAstakeholders in Wales and elsewhere, will need to take place to ensure the most effective approach for thefuture, but this is not impacted by the current proposals.

36. Veterinary Investigation Officers will continue to work with Private Vets to reach diagnosis as iscurrent practice.

37. In post mortem locations from which laboratory services functions are withdrawn, AHVLA will continueto accept carcasses, as now. Such tests as require to be conducted alongside the post mortem will continuelocally.3 Not printed.



38. The changes proposed will have no impact on the Agency’s ability to respond to a national exotic animaldisease outbreak, as the laboratory testing surge capability for dealing with any response of this kind is basedat the Weybridge laboratory and has not been impacted by the changes to the RL distribution of the department.

39. In the initial proposals for rationalisation the importance of ensuring a smooth and effective transitionfor gamma interferon testing to support the Welsh TB eradication programme was identified. By moving thesechanges to the second phase we have ensured that there is plenty of time to guarantee the transfer of this workusing tried and tested methods in accordance with the requirements of the International Standard (ISO17025)and of UKAS.

Impact of Changes in AHVLA on Staff Numbers in Wales

40. Numbers of staff affected at each site where laboratory services are being withdrawn are:

— Thirsk 14— Truro 4— Langford 14— Aberystwyth 4— Carmarthen 10— Luddington 18— Preston 13— Winchester 13

41. The rationalisation will enable the release of up to 81 AHVLA staff members, resulting in savings instaff and overheads costs of approximately £2.4 million per annum.

42. It has been agreed that there is a need to retain support posts for post mortem work at all sites wherelaboratory services work is to cease and therefore the number of staff affected at each site will reduce slightly;for Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, the number of posts being lost is likely to drop from 14 to 11.

43. Opportunities to redeploy staff affected by the changes are being sought within AHVLA and the widercivil service, and if necessary voluntary departure terms will be used to minimise the need for compulsoryredundancy.

44. AHVLA have introduced a development scheme for anyone wishing to make the transition to a fieldofficer role. The field officer development scheme is a six month programme which includes formal trainingand a series of work-based placements and suitable candidates whose posts are surplus will receive priority inaccessing the scheme.

45. AHVLA aims to remain the “provider of choice” for Welsh Government, and as such is mindful of theneed to protect Welsh jobs where possible while finding ways to reduce the costs of the services it providesacross GB. On this basis the national Specialist Service Centre for Tracings was situated in Cardiff, employing27 staff working on GB wide activities.

46. Between March 2009 and now, across the whole of AHVLA’s operations and taking account of theimpact of these changes, staff levels in Wales will have reduced by 5.5% compared to an average reductionacross GB of 16.6%.

November 2011

Annex A

Specifically, with respect to each of the retained sites, the major factors influencing the final choice were:

Bury St Edmunds

— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie determinative bacteriology; CEMO OIE referencelaboratory;

— specialist laboratory infrastructure, specifically CL3 laboratories; and

— estate rationalisation considerations; co-location of AHVLA laboratory and field operations in BurySt Edmunds.

Newcastle (Longbenton)

— retention of staff capacity; 22 FTE staff; maintaining a larger Work Group reduces managementoverhead versus several smaller sites;

— specialist laboratory infrastructure, specifically CL3 laboratories;

— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie TSE expertise;

— impact of the outsourcing of TSE rapid testing releases existing staff to take on additional workwithout the need for further recruitment; and



— estate rationalisation considerations ie the centralisation of other AHVLA sites in Newcastle to theLongbenton laboratory.

Penrith— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie molecular testing; and

— specialist laboratory infrastructure, specifically CL3 laboratories.

Shrewsbury— retention of staff capacity; 27.5 FTE staff; maintaining a larger WG reduces management overhead

versus several smaller sites;

— enabling reduction in number of sites; and

— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie clinical chemistry.

Starcross— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie bTb culture; molecular testing capability; and

— specialist laboratory infrastructure, specifically CL3 laboratories.

Sutton Bonington— specialist scientific and technical skills, ie bTb culture, gamma testing;

— specialist laboratory infrastructure, specifically CL3 laboratories;

— Location of the Quality Assurance unit (ISO 9001);

Annex B

Timeline for Decision Making for Rationalisation of Laboratory Services

April 2011—Review of AHVLA Laboratory Services commenced.

July 2011—Draft Report and Recommendations completed.

17 July 2011—Draft Report circulated to AHVLA Executive Team in preparation for discussion.

2 August 2011—Report and Recommendations discussed and support given by AHVLA Executive Team.

5 August 2011—Nina Purcell, Chief Operating Office gave verbal update to Christianne Glossop, CVOWales, on the AHVLA review of Laboratory Services.

17 August 2011—Laboratory Services Report circulated to CVO UK, CVO, Wales and CVO Scotland forcomment (deadline for comment 22/8).

22 August 2011—Christianne Glossop, CVO Wales sent comments.

23 August 2011—Submission for approval sent to English MoS.

1 September 2011—Announcement on proposed changes made to affected staff and AHVLA staff in generalsubject to further consideration.

9 September 2011—Submission cleared by English MoS.

13 September 2011—Confirmation of proposed changes made to AHVLA staff.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited04/2012 017884 19585

PEFC/16-33-622

the future of ahvla services in wales · 2012-04-25 · hc 1660 published on 25 april 2012 by...

Documents