Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
3. The Tyrrell Report
Government handling of the recommendations
Attempts to gain extra funding

3.49 By 30 June 1989, MAFF had prepared a comprehensive document in response to the Interim Report, in accordance with Mr Andrews's instructions. ¹ In addition to a submission to Ministers in relation to funding, the document included tables setting out MAFF's response to each of the research projects detailed in the Interim Report. ²

3.50 The draft submission was discussed at a meeting chaired by Mr Andrews on 13 July, and it was agreed that:

1. the two- and three-star projects in the report would be split into two categories. The first would list, with costings, projects which MAFF was responsible for funding, and the second would list projects MAFF regarded as falling to others;
2. a draft letter would be prepared for the Minister to send to the Secretaries of State of Health and for Education and Science seeking agreement to MAFF's approach to implementing the Interim Report;
3. the letter would be copied to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and would make clear how much extra funding the Minister would have to bid for to finance the extra research;
4. the letter would enclose a draft statement for the Minister to make to Parliament announcing decisions on the implementation of the Report; and
5. the letter would also seek agreement that there was no choice but to publish the Interim Report. ³

3.51 Mr Andrews later briefed the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr John Gummer, on the decisions made at the meeting. ⁴ Mr Gummer in turn told Mr Kenneth Clarke and Mr John MacGregor, newly appointed Secretary of State for Education and Science, that the Tyrrell Report had to be published, though he did not say when. He provided them with a costed breakdown of high-priority projects, indicating whether MAFF, DH or the Research Councils would be responsible for their funding. ⁵

3.52 Mr Gummer thought that in view of the wide public concern about BSE, there was no option for the Government other than to ensure the projects in the top two priority categories were initiated. Not to do so would leave the Government open to criticism that it had failed to carry out research into any potential dangers associated with BSE. Mr Gummer wanted to announce urgently that the Government had accepted the findings about the higher priority projects, and that money was being made available so that work could begin on the most pressing recommendations considered by the Committee to be of primary importance. He sought Mr Clarke's and Mr MacGregor's agreement to his announcement, and asked them to confirm whether they wished to be associated with it. ⁶

3.53 Mr Roger Freeman, ⁷ instead of Mr Clarke, replied to Mr Gummer on 9 August 1989. He said he was 'broadly content' with the proposed arrangements, and agreed the Report should be published without delay 'as a further indication of our intention to be entirely open about this disease and how the Government is responding to it'. He further commented that of the projects that fell solely to DH, work had begun on two, and the third had been given a one-star rating and would be considered by officials soon. Accordingly, funding for the DH projects could be contained within existing allocations. Mr Freeman concluded: 'I recognise and support your need for more R&D funds for BSE research this year if we are to announce that the high priority studies identified by the Tyrrell Committee are being taken forward as a matter of urgency.' ⁸

3.54 Mr Gummer's decision, made on the advice of his officials and proffered by Mr Andrews, and with the support of DH, that all projects recommended by the Tyrrell Committee as urgent should be put in hand, was creditable.

Attempts to gain extra funding

3.55 On 11 August 1989, Mr Norman Lamont ⁹ told Mr Gummer that he had 'some difficulty with your proposed funding arrangements and the content of your draft announcement'. In particular:

I am concerned that you have been unable to rearrange your priorities in order to accommodate research of such importance. I understand that your total provision for R&D is well over £100 million and, while the precise costings may not have been known until now, it has been known for a considerable amount of time that some research would be required into BSE. I should therefore like you to scrutinise your research programme in order to find savings which will balance the expenditure you propose in this area. ¹⁰

3.56 He further commented that his own predecessor had agreed to fund BSE measures introduced the previous year because of the possibility that the disease posed risks to human health. If BSE turned out not to be transmissible to humans, all funding should be borne by the industry. He continued:

Although I accept that it may not yet be possible to take a final view we have established that it is very unlikely that the disease can be passed on to humans. It is therefore disappointing that the attachment to your letter makes no mention of the possibility of industry funding. This would help avoid any claim on the Reserve in the present year. ¹¹

3.57 On 18 August Mr MacGregor said in reply to Mr Gummer's letter that although he agreed that the Report should be published, he could not agree with the terms of the draft announcement at this stage. This was because it was uncertain how the urgent work falling to the Department of Education and Science (DES) would be funded within the Science Budget. He, too, might need to approach Mr Lamont for extra funds, and was also consulting the relevant Research Councils on the appropriate allocation of the programme and the costs involved. ¹²

3.58 One month later the Management Board of DES met to discuss the Interim Report, and to determine which research projects would be appropriate for Science Budget funding. ¹³ The next day, 19 September, Mr MacGregor told Mr Gummer that his agreement to the announcement was conditional on extra funds being made available in 1989/90 from the Reserve. ¹⁴

3.59 On 2 October 1989 Mr Lamont informed Mr MacGregor, as he had Mr Gummer, that he was not convinced that BSE research justified a claim on the Reserve. Indeed, he thought that, as with MAFF's research budget, it would be possible to fund this expenditure from within the existing Science Budget through a reassessment of priorities. ¹⁵

3.60 Mr Andrews asked his Financial Guidance Division whether MAFF and DES had sufficient money in the current Public Expenditure Survey (PES) to fund the Tyrrell research. ¹⁶ Mr Richard McIvor responded on 2 November that MAFF had sufficient money in the PES to fund in-house BSE research. The external research would be funded from available funds for commissioned research. Mr McIvor understood that DES had no specific allocation in the PES for BSE research, but did have unallocated money available. It would be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to allocate that money to BSE research. ¹⁷

3.61 On 7 November 1989 Mr Andrews told Mr Cruickshank that it was 'very important that we now clear the way and deal with the publication of Tyrrell'. He claimed that DES had blocked it pending the PES outcome. Mr Andrews concluded: 'We must now sort out exactly where matters rest and press ahead with an announcement.' ¹⁸

3.62 One month later Mr Robert Lowson of MAFF's Animal Health Division wrote to Mr G J Mungeam of DES. He noted that it was 1 August 1989 when Mr Gummer wrote to Mr MacGregor seeking agreement on the terms of the announcement of the Tyrrell Report's publication. He continued:

Because of the need to ensure that adequate financial provision could be obtained to carry out the recommended research there have been inevitable delays while the PES process has been running. However, now that the major decisions on PES have been taken I am anxious for us to make progress on this issue as quickly as possible. ¹⁹

3.63 Mr Lowson noted that the only outstanding matter was the allocation of funds to the Research Councils for slow virus research. However, he understood that the Advisory Board for Research Councils would be advising Mr MacGregor that an allocation should be made. Although Mr MacGregor's final decision would not be for some weeks, Mr Lowson hoped this would not prevent agreement to an announcement before then. ²⁰

3.64 Dr Tyrrell expressed his frustration to Dr Levy on 14 December 1989:

I thought I should let you know that I did enquire what was to be done about the proposals in the report. I was told that the research proposals concerning MAFF were going to be implemented and that I should wait till November, by which time the funding would have been arranged, and the programme would be announced.

It is now clear that this was just a method of fobbing me off, and I see no point in going back to them for a repeat. I hope that the ideas sparked by the MRC meeting can and will be followed up in spite of the difficult financial climate. ²¹

3.65 On 20 December 1989 Mr Lowson informed Mrs Elizabeth Attridge (an Under Secretary at MAFF) that:

We are at last in a position to go ahead with publication of the Tyrrell Report into research priorities on BSE and the announcement of the Government's reaction. This has been held up since we received the Report in the summer, first by the need to get agreement in the PES for the substantial extra spending required, and second, by the need then to await Management Board decisions on how funds received in the PES would actually be spent. ²²