Volume 2: Science
Part 2: Commissioning and funding of research, 1986-96
Changing priorities for agricultural and food research
6.45 Research and development was just one of many government programmes, and the research arms of Departments (including the DES, which held the Science Vote and distributed it to the Research Councils) had to operate within the PES system. But research into BSE was also affected by two specific policy decisions.
6.46 The first of these was the decision, described earlier in this chapter, that the Government should withdraw from funding 'near-market research'. This had a direct and significant impact upon MAFF, and also upon the AFRC, because:
Historically, MAFF had been a Department that represented the interests of the agricultural producer, and for that reason it was accustomed to doing a good deal of research that was focused on the interests of the producer. 1
6.47 The scale of the impact can be gauged from the outcome of a review in 1987/88 of the research and development programmes of the Agriculture Departments. 2 This assessed the extent to which the Government should continue to fund near-market R&D for agriculture, fisheries and food. It recommended that up to £24.7 million of publicly funded near-market R&D, including £21.5 million spent on agriculture alone, 3 should be considered for industry funding. Of the £21.5 million, £17 million was spent by MAFF, with its Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) accounting for £11.3 million and the AFRC for £5.6 million. R&D on livestock was £9.7 million, or 45 per cent of spending on agriculture; 4 of this, £4.2 million related to all ruminants, including £3.4 million on cattle.
6.48 Dr David Shannon, MAFF Chief Scientist, told the Inquiry that the final figure for near-market research had been determined at around £30 million:
Responsibility for this work was passed to industry and a counter-balancing cut of £30m was made in the MAFF and the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD) 5 R&D budgets. The MAFF cut (as adjusted for inflation) was spread over the financial years 1989/90 to 1991/92 (£3.875m rising to £12.1m and £19.2m). 6
6.49 The second policy consideration was the decision by Ministers to accept a recommendation in 1985 by the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food 7 that expenditure on research into animal diseases was disproportionate and should be reduced. 8 A number of witnesses commented to the Inquiry on this recommendation. Dr William Watson, until March 1990 Director of the CVL, considered that the Board's view was 'flawed', in part because it assumed greater availability of information than was in fact the case. 9 Mr William Rees, the Chief Veterinary Officer at MAFF until May 1988, commented that:
I thought there should be more flexibility . . . They had said that the overall spend on animal disease should be reduced by 20 per cent. You cannot really regulate animal disease in that way. We felt there should be more flexibility, that with a new disease we should be able to get new money for it. 10
6.50 Professors Peter Biggs and John Bourne, the first two Directors of the AFRC's Institute for Animal Health (IAH), 11 told the Inquiry that this reduction in funding had led between 1983 and 1987 to a 40 per cent reduction in the number of science group staff in the four institutions that made up the IAH. 12
1 S311 Gummer p. 14 para. 42. Mr John Gummer was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from July 1989 to May 1993
2 Report on a review of expenditure by the agricultural departments on research and development (April 1988) (M11E tab 14). This was carried out by a senior MAFF official, Mr C J A Barnes, and is hereafter cited as the Barnes Report). The 'agricultural departments' were MAFF; the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS); and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (DANI). The Report was commissioned by the ministerial subcommittee for science and technology, E(ST), a subcommittee of the Ministerial Steering Committee on Economic Strategy
3 This represented around 22 per cent of total R&D on agriculture; the rest being work in support of statute, to assist policy formulation or implementation, or basic research - see Barnes Report, pp. 7-8 para. 17. The remaining £4.5 million was split between DAFS (£2.8 million) and DANI (£1.7 million) - Barnes Report (M11E tab 14), p. 42 Annex IV
4 Most of the rest was spent on research into crops and horticulture
5 At that time known as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS)
6 S101 Shannon p. 4 para. 15
7 See successive Priorities Board reports on M20. This was an independent body set up to advise agriculture Ministers - ie, those of MAFF, the Scottish and Welsh Offices, and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (DANI). It was chaired by a senior businessman and included as members others from industry and commerce; an academic; farmers or agricultural specialists; representatives from MAFF, the Scottish Office and the AFRC; and (from 1991) a consumer representative. Officials from the Welsh Office, DANI, and (from 1991) MAFF's Economics and Statistics Group acted as Assessors
8 M20 tab 1 p. 30 paras 8.13-8.14
9 T29 pp. 49-50
10 T54 p. 68
11 When set up in 1986, this was known as the Institute for Animal Disease Research (IADR). It was renamed in 1988
12 S106 Biggs p. 4 para. 13; T44 p. 50
© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.