Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
4. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Resources and processes
Payment of fees
Research information
Communication of SEAC's deliberations

Payment of fees

4.38 SEAC members received a set daily fee for their services in addition to expenses. ¹ However, fees were not available to members of expert advisory groups who were already receiving normal salaries from public service organisations. This meant that Dr Tyrrell became eligible to receive the chairman's fee following his retirement from the MRC at the end of September 1990. The other members in 1990 who were not in full-time public sector employment and who thus qualified for fees were Professor Brown, Drs Watson and Kimberlin, and Mr Pepper. Those not receiving fees were Dr Will, and Professors Barlow and Allen. Over time, SEAC members received increased payments in line with standard Government increases.

Research information

4.39 At SEAC's first meeting on 1 May 1990, the Committee agreed that it should aim to keep itself informed about all relevant research - on a confidential basis when necessary. The Committee noted the usefulness of sheets which had been prepared for the six-monthly CVL/NPU meetings to discuss MAFF-funded work being made available. Also, Committee members were to exchange information about relevant scientific meetings, so that at least one person attended and could report to the others on new findings.

4.40 The main difficulty identified by the Committee was how to keep abreast of developments in research, both domestically and overseas. A list of groups interested in spongiform encephalopathies had already been drawn up but required expansion. The Committee considered it difficult to keep up with the relevant literature, particularly for members without ready access to large libraries. Mr Bradley and Dr Pickles agreed to make arrangements for appropriate listings and papers to be circulated. Mr Lowson was asked to organise the collation of relevant extracts from the non-specialist press. In addition, Mr Bradley was asked to regularly update a table summarising research work being undertaken in relation to the recommendations of the former Tyrrell Committee, with an indication of both results and progress when possible. ²

4.41 In oral evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Bradley explained how SEAC was kept abreast of developments:

I mean we did have a system in SEAC, a very good one, where all publications on TSEs were notified to us in a list on a regular basis, and I would go through that list and select particular papers which I felt were of such importance that should be circulated individually to SEAC members. So, I think that was the way, in general, that we got the information. But of course other individuals had their own interests in this area of work and kept abreast of the literature independently of anything SEAC gave them naturally. So it was not just a one way job, it was a multifaceted information system. ³

4.42 At the fourth meeting of SEAC, on 2 July 1990, the Committee gave further consideration to literature searches and felt that these should be conducted by DH and CVL libraries in view of the enormous amount of material to which initial searches had given rise. In particular, the libraries were asked to provide an historical list of relevant titles over as long a period as possible, and a monthly 'current-awareness' listing. Other suggestions included the creation of an internal computerised database, and the preparation of an up-to-date bibliography on scrapie and BSE. ⁴

4.43 The Committee also sought to make use of cross-representation with various other committees to keep abreast of research. For example, Professor Allen and Dr Pickles provided a link to the MRC Murray Committee on human encephalopathies. ⁵

4.44 As a regular feature of its role, the SEAC secretariat also commissioned, and sometimes drafted, papers for the Committee to consider, as a focus for the issues on the agenda. Occasional seminars and workshops with experts in various fields were also organised. ⁶

Communication of SEAC's deliberations

Communication within the Departments

4.45 The two Secretaries to SEAC usually took it in turns to take charge of the preparation of the minutes of Committee meetings. This was a lengthy process which could span a month or more. In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Eddy described the practice when he was Secretary:

(1) the first draft of the minutes was drawn up from notes taken at the SEAC meeting by MAFF junior officials;

(2) the first draft minutes were sent to relevant senior officials who had attended the SEAC meeting [including the MAFF observer] within MAFF for comment;

(3) a revised draft, incorporating any comments from MAFF recipients of the first draft, was sent to DH for their comments;

(4) a further revised draft, incorporating any comments from DH, was sent to the Chairman of SEAC . . . for clearance;

(5) once the Chairman cleared the minutes they were sent to all the members of SEAC and a copy was sent to various MAFF, DH and territorial officials;

(6) the minutes would then be agreed at the next SEAC meeting. ⁷

4.46 Mr Eddy added:

I was not personally involved in circulating the SEAC Minutes. That function was carried out by more junior members of staff . . . I do not now recall whether all draft SEAC Minutes cleared by the Chairman were always circulated to the same people. ⁸

4.47 The draft minutes were more widely circulated than the final minutes. In oral evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Lowson explained:

It was my habit to pass the minutes to colleagues whom I felt would be interested, not to Ministers, at the stage when they were in draft. As soon as they were written after meetings, I would circulate them to interested colleagues. ⁹

4.48 In addition, Mr Eddy told us:

Where there was a matter of particular importance or interest which arose at a SEAC meeting I would either do a note or circulate an extract from the Minutes to the relevant officials and, if appropriate, the Minister. ¹⁰

4.49 Regarding the dissemination within MAFF of papers put to SEAC, Mr Eddy informed the Inquiry that 'these were not usually circulated'. ¹¹

Communication with the territories

4.50 As noted above in the section on SEAC 'Membership', the proposal by the Territorial CMOs for observer status on SEAC was rejected by Dr Tyrrell, who believed the size of the Committee should not become unwieldy. Regarding communication with the territories, Dr Tyrrell stated in oral evidence to the Inquiry:

We thought that it had been agreed in the early days that our minutes and our opinions . . . would be also going to the regions, and it was with some surprise that we discovered it was not happening, and the Welsh in particular felt very much left out. So I made a special journey down to Wales to try and bring them up to date and to make clear that it was a slip-up, not a deliberate ignoring of their place in things. ¹²

4.51 Professor Pattison added:

I have always imagined that before devolution, the Department of Health and indeed MAFF was always informing the CMO Scotland and the CMO Wales in the case of the Department of Health, and the relevant people, who I did not know so well because I come from the medical side, in the Agriculture Departments of Wales and Scotland. So as Chairman of SEAC, one had not gone to any lengths to make sure that the territories were informed, one just imagined that it happened as a consequence of Government. Clearly it might not have done. ¹³

4.52 In fact, on 8 November 1990, the CMOs of the Territorial Departments were advised by Dr Metters, Deputy CMO, that, instead of having observer status on SEAC, they would receive 'all the relevant papers' from the SEAC secretariat. ¹⁴

4.53 However, in oral evidence to the Inquiry, Dr Robert Kendell, CMO at the Scottish Office from October 1991 to September 1996, stated: 'I never ever saw a minute from SEAC at any stage'. ¹⁵ Similarly, in her oral evidence to the Inquiry, Dame Deirdre Hine said:

I was concerned that we were not getting - I never saw the minutes and it is clear, I think, from some of the correspondence between us and the Department of Health that for some time those minutes were not coming to us from the Department of Health. ¹⁶

4.54 Dame Deirdre Hine's view on what constituted 'relevant papers' was that 'you would normally see both the minutes and the supporting papers'. ¹⁷

4.55 Dr Henrietta Campbell, CMO for Northern Ireland from January 1995 onwards, said: ' . . . we did not receive minutes or supporting papers and, indeed, in the middle of the year 1995, I can remember that we expressly asked for minutes'. Dr Campbell added that SEAC minutes were still not sent to the Northern Ireland Office until post-March 1996. ¹⁸

4.56 Dr Andrew Matheson, Assistant Secretary in the Meat Hygiene/Animal Health Division, Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD), suggested that from 1994 SEAC minutes and papers 'that went before SEAC' were copied to the Scottish Office. ¹⁹ However, Mr William Gardner, Veterinary Head of Section (VHS) in the Scottish Office at the time, said in oral evidence to the Inquiry: 'All I can say is that we did not see a full set. I do not recall seeing full sets of SEAC papers until quite recently'. ²⁰ He clarified this as referring to 'the scientific papers, which were tabled for discussion. The minutes we have seen more recently [from 1997]'. ²¹ Mr James Scudamore, ACVO for Scotland at the time, stated that he did not recollect seeing either papers or Minutes. ²²

4.57 When Mr Lowson was asked in oral evidence whether he believed the Territorial Departments received draft SEAC minutes, he responded:

I do not think they did. However, as far as MAFF was concerned the Veterinary Service was a GB service, and so in conveying to Tolworth colleagues what came out of the SEAC discussion, we were conveying it to veterinary colleagues who dealt with Wales and Scotland as well. There was, I agree, the possibility that veterinary colleagues in Northern Ireland might sometimes be overlooked. This happens in bureaucracies. But on the other hand I am not aware of any occasion when they failed to get the information that they needed. As far as Health colleagues are concerned, it was not my habit to try to identify Health officials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to whom the minutes or the findings of the SEAC Committee should be addressed. I would leave my colleagues in the Department of Health to do that. ²³

4.58 In fact, the Territorial Departments relied on personal contacts within the main Departments for dissemination of information from SEAC. Mr Scudamore told the Inquiry:

I do not recollect seeing papers or the minutes; but we did know what was going on. In fact I did get papers. So for example if I wanted a summary of a specific experiment, I would ring up [Dr Danny Matthews - MAFF Senior Veterinary Officer] and ask for the documents. We occasionally asked and we got summaries, not necessarily the document that went to SEAC but similar documents. ²⁴

4.59 Mr Ron Martin, CVO for Northern Ireland from 1990, added:

I think that would be a right description in Northern Ireland as well. If I wanted to know something, I phoned either Keith Meldrum [CVO] or Kevin Taylor [Assistant CVO] and I would be told of that. I did not see the detailed papers at that stage. Nor do I think I needed to see them, to be quite honest. ²⁵

4.60 Dr Kendell said:

I thought that what was happening was that Dr Wight, in the Department of Health, who attended all SEAC meetings, passed on all important decisions and all important information to Dr Skinner and Dr Skinner would pass it on to me if she thought it was important. ²⁶

4.61 Dr Kendell also commented on why 'Whitehall' Departments might be reluctant to give their documents to the Territorial Departments on a matter which might be of interest:

I think they probably sometimes have worries about confidentiality. We are not directly involved, so we ought to be content with information on a need to know basis. There is a certain amount of tension, but it is not restricted to this issue. It is much wider. And usually it works reasonably well and a good personal relationship between the two individuals concerned is the key. ²⁷

Communication with the public

4.62 On 21 May 1990, during a debate on BSE in the House of Commons, Mr Gummer made the following statement:

All the results of the research [relevant to BSE] will be made publicly available because, throughout the debate I have made it clear that the information and knowledge available to us will be made public. I intend to continue on precisely that course. ²⁸

4.63 In response to a question about the Government's advice to farmers on breeding from calves of BSE-infected animals, Mr Gummer indicated his intention to publish all scientific advice on which the Government's decisions were based:

The Tyrrell committee [SEAC] produced a report for me . . . it is in the Library . . . I expect that Dr Tyrrell will be giving me a longer report some time soon, and I shall place it in the Library as well - just as I place all information that is given to me on which these decisions are made. ²⁹

4.64 Mr Gummer informed the House that he had asked SEAC to consider slaughterhouse practices and went on to say:

I shall always be willing to refer issues which arise in this matter to experts and will make their advice public. ³⁰