In a damning report, an influential committee of MPs has warned that the Government’s failure to maintain its veterinary laboratory at Weybridge is leaving the UK at risk of devastating livestock diseases.
The Public Accounts Committee accused the Government of not sufficiently prioritising the ‘significant threat to UK health, trade, farming and rural communities’ posed by animal diseases. It said the risk of a zoonotic disease, such as African swine fever (ASF), is real and the consequences can be devastating, citing the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and the current Avian Influenza outbreak, hitting poultry farmers across the country.
The committee found there were over 1,000 ‘single points of failure’ that could cause ‘major disruption’ at the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge site, which carries out tests and research on animal samples for disease surveillance, as part of its wider remit of tackling and eradicating high-risk animal diseases.
Defra is upgrading the site, and the Treasury has approved funding of £1.2 billion for a Weybridge redevelopment programme, including £200 million up to 2024-25. However, this compares with the Department’s current cost estimate of £2.8 billion
The report said that due to the considerable time taken to get a redevelopment programme up and running, a ‘critical works patch and repair’ programme will run until the redevelopment programme is due to be completed in 2036.
The MPs said Defra has ‘comprehensively failed in its historical management’ of what is the UK’s primary site for managing plant and animal disease threats.
Deterioration due to ‘inadequate management and under-investment’ has left the site ‘continually vulnerable to a major breakdown’, which would severely impact the ability to effectively respond to disease outbreaks.
Highlighting the threat of ASF, which is circulating in various European countries, as an example of the ongoing disease threats the UK faces, the report said Weybridge would already ‘struggle’ with anything higher than a medium category outbreak, or any multiple outbreaks.
PAC chair Dame Meg Hillier said: “After the 2001 disaster of foot and mouth disease, the past decades have brought one animal-sourced disease after another.
“It is shocking that government has allowed UK capacity in this area to deteriorate so alarmingly over that same period.
“These diseases are devastating for our food production systems, the economy and, when they jump the species barrier to humans as COVID-19 did, to our whole society. “Government must get a grip on this crucial and much delayed redevelopment programme. When it comes to the safety of our country we cannot afford more of the waste and delivery failures that continue to characterise far too many major projects.”
Defra response
A Defra spokesperson said: “We are proud of Weybridge’s long-standing reputation for excellence in the field of biosecurity and the work it does to protect the UK from animal diseases.
“Significant funding and work is already underway to upgrade its laboratories and ensure we are protected from these diseases into the future.
“Its world-leading scientists and our field teams are playing a vital role in responding rapidly and decisively to the threats from animal diseases, including the current Avian Influenza outbreak, which is the largest on record.”
The Government has secured £1.4bn of funding for the Science Capability in Animal Health Programme to invest in the site.
NPA chief policy adviser Rebecca Veale said the report was ‘extremely concerning, although not surprising’. “It is a call to action that Government must acknowledge and address immediately. The risk posed by notifiable diseases such as African swine fever has never been so high and so urgent – hence why the facilities at Weybridge are so integral, and should therefore be well resourced to ensure we are as well protected as possible,” she said.
Ms Veale pointed out that the 2000 classical swine fever and the 2001 FMD outbreaks cost the UK Government an estimated £3.5 billion, while the ongoing avian flu outbreak has stretched APHA’s resources already and demonstrates how critical adequate staffing, resources and expertise are in a disease outbreak situation.
“The report makes a number of recommendations – however, there is little recognition of the risk, responsibility and potential impact and cost, this lack of investment places on industry should we contract ASF, particularly given the extremely challenging few years the pig sector has experienced and continues to face,” she added.
“NPA will continue to lobby Treasury and wider Government to make sure they understand that a lack of sufficient investment in Weybridge is a national disease risk and that this must be addressed urgently for the health, and welfare, of our national herd.”
Tony Goodger, a spokesman for the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, said: “The first few lines of the report are sufficient to set the alarm bells ringing that when it comes to animal disease and the threat they pose to the country’s food security the woeful lack of investment and mismanagement at the APHA lab in Weybridge is inexcusable and once again shows that the livestock industry is simply not front of mind within the Government’s plans for critical infrastructure.
“The retort of ‘learning lessons’ can no longer be seen as being acceptable when the outbreaks of animal disease impacts the country’s access to domestically produced meat and poultry leaving us exposed to the vagaries of global markets to plug the gap.
“This report should act as a warning to the politicians that knowing the cost of something is never sufficient if you don’t understand the value of it.”
Key points and recommendations
1 We are greatly concerned that the UK government is not sufficiently prioritising the threat from animal diseases.
We are concerned that the Government’s National Risk Register only ranks the impact of animal diseases as Category C, the middle ranking on a five-point scale A to E, despite the scale of potential economic and social impacts of animal diseases so starkly set out during our evidence session.
The Department’s inadequate long-term management of the Weybridge site demonstrates that it has not viewed animal disease as a high enough priority, but we also think the Department has not had a strong enough voice in government to stress the seriousness of the threat.
Recommendation: The Department must be more effective in highlighting the significant threat from animal diseases and ensure that the next update to the National Risk Register adequately reflects the seriousness of this threat.
2 The Department has allowed the Weybridge site to deteriorate to a completely unacceptable degree, through a combination of inadequate management and under investment.
The Department managed the Weybridge site simply as a property asset, not recognising the importance of the science undertaken at the site. Despite recognising the deteriorating condition of the Weybridge site in 2015, the Department has taken a considerable time to get a redevelopment programme up and running.
Recommendation: The Department and HM Treasury must learn lessons from Weybridge and ensure that the situation is not repeated with the Department’s other key infrastructure or more widely across the UK’s important national infrastructure.
3 The Weybridge site is continually vulnerable to a major breakdown which would severely impact the APHA’s operations including responding to disease outbreaks.
The Department and the APHA rate the risk of a major breakdown of facilities at the Weybridge site as high. The potential risk was illustrated by a 2014 generator failure which led to a loss of power to some of the high containment buildings.
The APHA does have contingency plans in place, but a major breakdown could result in it taking longer to do surveillance testing during a disease outbreak. It would also need to prioritise disease outbreaks over other work such as its important research programme.
The Weybridge site has over 1,000 ‘single points of failure’ that would cause a major disruption to operations. With the Weybridge redevelopment programme not due to be completed until 2036, the Department is looking to manage the risk of breakdown in the shorter-term through: a critical works ‘patch and repair’ programme; increasing its staff resources to manage the site; and putting in place a more appropriate facilities management contract.
Recommendation: As a matter of urgency, the Department and the APHA need to stress test their contingency plans for a major breakdown at the Weybridge site and how they would cope with a significant animal disease outbreak which coincided with a major breakdown.
4 It is not yet certain that there will be sufficient investment in developing Weybridge’s capacity to ensure the UK’s long-term resilience to animal diseases.
The APHA is confident it could respond to a Category 3 animal disease outbreak (the middle category on a scale from one to five) such as the recent Avian Influenza outbreak, but can only do this by pausing some of its important research due to limited laboratory capacity. However, it would struggle with higher category outbreaks, or where outbreaks happened concurrently. The UK’s current laboratory capacity for the highest containment level (ACPD level four) is very limited and cannot undertake testing and research on large animals. HM Treasury has approved funding of £1.2 billion for the Weybridge redevelopment programme including £200 million up to 2024-25. This compares with the Department’s current cost estimate of £2.8 billion.
Failure to secure adequate additional funding at the next stage in 2024 would mean decisions needed to be made about the scope of the Programme and the extent of redevelopment at Weybridge. The Department is finding it challenging to quantity and value the benefits of the redevelopment programme such as the economic benefits of science investment.
Recommendation: The Department needs to work with HM Treasury to establish a more certain funding position for the Weybridge redevelopment programme.
5 There remains substantial uncertainty over the costs of the Weybridge redevelopment programme.
In developing its Programme Business Case the Department did more detailed work to understand the costs of the Programme. This increased its cost estimate from £1.2 billion in its Outline Business Case (March 2020) to £2.8 billion. The Department acknowledges there remains substantial uncertainty over its cost estimate and it has continued to develop the estimate by,
Recommendation: The Department needs to continue to develop its cost estimate and be clear where, and how much, uncertainty remains. This should include the use of cost ranges to illustrate the level of uncertainty.
6 There is a risk that the Weybridge redevelopment programme will not have sufficient staff capability and capacity to manage the Programme effectively.
The Weybridge site is nationally important in the UK’s defence against animal diseases. The Department confirmed that the Weybridge redevelopment programme is a high priority for staffing. However, the National Audit Office highlighted the challenges the Department is having recruiting staff to some of the more specialist technical, engineering and programme delivery roles.
Recommendation: The Department needs to ensure that it has the right staff capability and capacity to deliver the Weybridge redevelopment programme.
7 The redevelopment of Weybridge is a large construction programme with a range of commercial risks that will need careful management. The Department recognises the challenges of integrating a large number of contracts. It is looking to minimise these where appropriate and also to building up its capability to manage and integrate the contracts. The Department is also concerned about the risk of a lack of contractor appetite to bid for the main construction contracts.
Recommendation: The Department should report back to us in six months on progress in developing its commercial strategy and specifically on how it:
- intends to structure its contracts and manage their integration effectively; and
- will ensure there is adequate competition for the main construction contracts.