A new TB Advisory Group was set up last year, its remit to report directly to the secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That remit however appears to have been watered down somewhat in a snippet found on the Defra website, when the group reported on 'bio security' and bovine Tb. We are most grateful to eagle eyed site watchers for the following gem found on the
"They were concerned that farmers would be less likely to follow the advice if it was then contradicted by findings from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG). The Group advised that the Husbandry Working Group's advice needs to be consistent with the ISG’s final report due later this year. The Group therefore recommends that before publication the husbandry advice is sent to the ISG for their views and to confirm there is nothing in the advice that would be contradicted by the ISG at a later date".
The Chairman of the TB Advisory Group was appointed by Ministers in July 2006. Members were then appointed and the Group was established in October 2006. It is a remunerated stakeholder forum, meaning that taxpayers fund it to no mean degree. That being the case, and bearing in mind the Groups' self proclaimed status described above, which may be described - quite politely - as eunochs on the ISG gravy train which it does not wish to contradict in any way at all, would it not be cheaper all round just to ask John Bourne?
Then again, maybe not.
As we reported here , Bourne's own managers of the ill conceived and sloppily executed 'badger dispersal trial' warned Ministers not to take a blind bit of notice of its results. However this newly formed "Tb Advisory Group" feel obliged to offer their expensive and much cogitated 'advice' first to the ISG, in order that it it is not "contradicted by the ISG at a later date.."
What on earth is the use of a group like this, if they are so afraid to present their recommendations to the Minister, that they have to get approval first from the another group who have caused absolute carnage in the areas where they have 'operated'.? And what happens to these very woolly and half hearted 'recommendations' when the ISG presents its final chapters, in a couple of months' time?