What next for bovine TB?

 

A report by G. Godwin-Pearson | Follow us on Twitter: @bowgroup

 

  2  

Introduction   The Government’s policy of piloting the culling badgers to halt the spread of TB in cattle has not been successful. With estimated costs per badger at £4,121 1, the largest ever No 10 e-petition 2 and the scientific community publicly opposed to the policy, it was never going to be popular. The forthcoming official report by an Independent Panel of Experts on the recent pilot culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire is likely to impress on ministers that the shooting of free-roaming badgers is not an effective or humane way of preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) from badgers to cattle, and that more badger culling will be of no benefit. Nationally, the picture for farmers is more optimistic than the NFU would like the public to believe. Incidences of tuberculosis (TB) amongst cattle are falling and slaughter rates are down almost 10% in England 3. In Wales, where annual testing has been in place for 5 years, the numbers of cattle slaughtered each year have fallen by almost half. The Government now has the opportunity to move on from historical rhetoric and hearsay and to take real steps towards eradicating bTB in England. But, it will require a shift in emphasis in Whitehall and Smith Square. A new emphasis on vaccination is emerging - the Zoological Society of London held a major conference on the subject in October 2013 4, DEFRA is rolling-out and supporting further vaccination trials in England 5, the Welsh Government is continuing with its mass vaccination policy in the Intensive Action Area, and the new Badger and Cattle Vaccination Initiative was launched in Parliament in the first week of February, to raise donations for a national vaccination programme 6. In the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle, Owen Paterson’s replacement with the DEFRA brief should move the language and policy of bTB on in a way that will please the scientific community, pacify voters and benefit the rural economy.

  3  

Why  did  the  pilot  badger  culls  fail? Much has been written about the two pilot badger-culling trials in Somerset and Gloucestershire conducted in 2013 and the majority of those in the know predicted that they wouldn’t work. A major badger culling trial was carried-out under the last Labour Government and the independent report that followed concluded that “culling could make no meaningful contribution to the control of cattle TB in Britain”. It also stated that in order to slow the forecast rise in bTB by 12-16% over 10 years, 70% of all badgers across large areas would need to be culled within a short time period, and the population maintained at the new, reduced level for a number of years. A subsequent meeting of scientific experts, convened by DEFRA in April 2011, concluded that culling would need to be ‘conducted simultaneously as defined as within a six week period each year’ 7. This was in order to mitigate the effects of perturbation, which would otherwise worsen the situation. The 2013 culls started badly, since the local populations of badgers weren’t known, so 70% was impossible to calculate. In fact, during the cull, when shooters failed to reach targets, the population estimates were lowered significantly. DEFRA drastically under-estimated the cost of culling 1 and marksmen found it much harder to locate and kill animals than was previously thought. The number of shooting incidents that were observed during the culls was very low; even so, in a significant proportion the badgers concerned were shot in the wrong place, and some had to be shot a second time before succumbing, leading to considerable, prolonged suffering. If they are representative of the situation across the culls, literally hundreds of badgers may have suffered. The animals selected for post-mortem examinations were chosen by the shooters themselves, leading to speculation of bias 8. Finally, no attempt was made to test for TB in the culled badgers, nor were any effects of perturbation taken into account. The lack of coordination, oversight, control and science ensured that an unpopular policy garnered considerably more bad publicity, which in turn has put pressure on ministers and DEFRA to scrap culling altogether 9. The Government is between a rock and a hard place, since it knows that to measure culling methodology scientifically would only serve to highlight poor efficacy, but a commitment to the NFU to deliver culls is deeply unpopular with the majority of voters.

  4  

A   brief   history   of   bTB   in   Britain   and   the   rise   of   the   present  problem During the 1930s, bTB was endemic in dairy herds, which were kept near cities in poorly ventilated cowsheds – ideal conditions for the spread of the disease. Before mass milk pasteurisation was introduced in 1935, bovine TB was a major public health risk and caused thousands of human deaths. A voluntary test and slaughter scheme was introduced and the movement of cattle from affected farms prohibited. The testing and slaughter arrangement became compulsory in the 1950s and inspection of carcasses at the slaughterhouse also became routine. Accuracy of the test was poor, so movement of cattle between heavily tested TB-free herds and those that had not been heavily tested was banned. By the mid-1960s, this attested herd scheme meant that bTB had been almost completely eradicated 10. With bTB on the way out, the numbers of tests and slaughters dropped. At different times in the mid-1970s, all English cattle herds were declared free of TB. It was during this time, when TB in cattle was low, that the disease was first discovered in the body of a badger, in Gloucestershire. With little TB in cattle, between 1975 and 1986, a number of strategic badger culling trials were conducted, including gassing, cage trapping and shooting, though gassing was stopped in 1982 after being deemed inhumane. An increase in the prevalence of TB in cattle was detected again in the 1980s, although it took several years for the testing and slaughter policies to catch up, during which time, cattle movement, cattle trading, ever-increasing herd sizes and intensive farming techniques led to a year-on-year increase in bTB 11. Productivity on farms being key to the maintenance of EU subsidies, the Government was forced to ignore poor herd conditions and biosecurity and instead opted to point the finger at badgers. So, in 1998, the huge Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) began, overseen by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on Cattle TB. Subsequent reports recommended that the long-term goal of TB eradication would best be achieved through the use of improved cattle measures and vaccines 12 and that culling would have no meaningful effect on TB in cattle 13. Meanwhile, BSE became a major problem in the mid-1990s, detected in 150,000 animals and just over half of British herds 14. In 2001, the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease led to a hiatus in TB testing and the epizootic saw 2,030 cases around the country and the slaughter of more than 10 million cattle and sheep. The use of the vaccine for foot and mouth was recurrently considered, but the Government declined following pressure from the NFU, which was concerned about future exports being prevented by the presence of the vaccine. Ironically, transportation of cattle abroad led to a small number of outbreaks in France, the Netherlands and Northern Ireland 15. The millions of cattle slaughtered during the crises required a subsequent restocking of dairy herds and these came predominantly from the Westcountry. It is believed that this restocking significantly contributed to the spread of bTB that we have seen since, because it was completed without pre- or post-movement TB testing 16.

  5  

Bovine  TB  is  declining  without  culling   By all accounts, bTB should be on the rise. In the last few years however, something has changed. Recent figures suggest that rates of TB are falling. Comparing DEFRA’s numbers for England for Sep 2013 with Sep 2012, new cases were down 5.9% and the number of cattle slaughtered was down 9.5% 17. The provisional incidence rate for Jan-Nov 2013 was 4.5%, compared with Jan-Nov 2012 (4.8%) and the number of new herd incidents was down from 4,758 in Jan-Nov 2012 to 4,456 in the same period in 2013. The slaughter rate was also down from almost 35,000 in Jan-Nov 2012 to 30,220 in the same period in 2013 18. The AHVLA has referenced ‘significant’ changes in their data 19. A national drop in bTB is clearly a good sign that recently introduced cattle controls are working. Significantly, these figures are not related to the badger culling trials, which were confined to two areas of Somerset and Gloucestershire and only took place late in 2013. Why  is  bTB  declining?   From the beginning, the Government insisted that tackling TB would require a package of measures and many of these are being implemented. These have included: - Increased and more rigorous cattle testing, coupled with a simplification of bTB test instructions for herds that have had their Officially TB Free Status Withdrawn (OTFW) due to a breakdown 20. - More areas of England have come under an annual testing regime, and the whole of Wales has been under annual testing since 2008, widening the detection and slaughter policy to more farms. 10 new counties across the south-west, west and Midlands were added to those where farms require annual testing in 2013. - Movement restrictions have been tightened around the country. Post-breakdown, farmers must test their entire herd before introducing new cattle and they have 30 days, down from 60, to move cattle that test negative from a breakdown farm 21. - Farms that have had a case of TB in their farm will not be allowed to bring new cattle in until the rest of the herd has been tested for TB and a vet has carried out an assessment 22. - There is evidence that there has been greater compliance with testing requirements and zero tolerance of overdue tests. This was driven by a Sep 2011 European Commission inspection, which documented a catalogue of failures in biosecurity on English farms 23, 24. Furthermore, the new SAM computer system has facilitated greater compliance with moving reactors from farms to slaughter within the 10-day period specified. - DEFRA and landowners now have a better understanding of the transmission method of bTB, i.e. that it is predominantly spread from cattle-to-cattle 25, 26. It was a rigorous test and slaughter regime that almost eliminated bTB in the 1950s and 1960s in Britain and formed the basis of complete eradication in Australia 10, although some say the measures don’t go far enough.

  6  

Where  next?   To make an impact on bTB, the Government needs a four-phase approach: 1. Reducing the spread of TB further amongst cattle 2. Vaccinating badgers 3. Working towards a cattle vaccine 4. Establishing an independent panel for bTB policy-making Reducing the spread of TB further amongst cattle DEFRA’s extension of the areas under annual testing and reduction of cattle movement is already reducing the spread of TB to previously TB-free herds. To build on this improvement, the department should consider compulsory, pre-movement testing of animals before they are moved to agricultural shows and common land. Farmers that own farms in different areas of the country can legally move animals between those farms without testing or declaring a TB infection, since technically these holdings can be part of the same farm. This means that cattle in a TB hotspot can be moved elsewhere, increasing their value, but risking the spread of the disease. The simplest way to eliminate this risk is to treat different farms as different holdings, between which the movement of cattle requires pre-movement testing. In addition, farmers are not obliged to notify their neighbours if they have been subjected to a TB breakdown – this should be compulsory. The AVHLA is supposed to visit every farm within a 3km surveillance zone of a reactor within 28 days, but this duration is too long since bTB could spread across and between holdings in this time 27, 28. If a pregnant cow tests positive, she is supposed to be separated, but is not sent to slaughter until the calf is born. Subsequently, after birth, the calf will be suckling infected milk, but only the mother goes to slaughter. Under EU regulations, a diseased cow must be isolated from the herd immediately and every holding must have a quarantine area. Neither rule is being adequately enforced 22. Indeed, bad husbandry plays an important role in the spread of TB and the susceptibility of cattle. Close proximity and stress within large herds kept in confinement make communicability of TB worse. Currently, there is little imperative for herd-owners to improve conditions for their cattle, but EU subsidies should to be paid on the basis of good management, with large fines for those who routinely break the law. One of the difficulties of testing cattle for TB is the design of the single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin (SICCT) skin test, which is far from perfect. In fact, 22% of animals only show signs of TB post-slaughter 29. A test that is only 78% accurate is clearly not designed to detect disease in a single animal and it was developed to identify TB in a herd, all of which would then be slaughtered. This approach, taken in Switzerland and elsewhere, becomes uneconomical with herds as large as those in Britain 30. Before we can begin to look at ways to eradicate bTB, it’s important that farmers, the livestock industry and the NFU are aware and understand the limitations of the SICCT test, and thus the need for a rigorous testing regime, including pre-movement testing, to identify the disease and prevent onward transmission.

  7  

The Gamma Interferon (g-IFN) blood test, which was developed 30 years ago in Australia, provides a far more accurate and more scientific picture (97% accuracy) alongside SICCT testing than the skin test can alone. It is, however, more expensive and therefore not compulsory. The continued singular predominance of the SICCT test is partly responsible for the spread of TB. Using the g-IFN test as well, as standard, would provide better data about TB, catch incidents earlier and reduce the number of false positives (animals that are slaughtered and farms that are locked-down unnecessarily). Vaccinating badgers If badgers are a significant cause of TB in cattle, then it makes sense to eradicate TB in badgers, alongside other measures. Some of the failures in reducing TB in badgers due to culling do not apply with vaccination. As the Bow Group has argued previously, this is more effective, more humane, and more popular with the electorate than culling. Unlike many species, British badger populations are naturally very stable, with little movement and interaction between local groups. Vaccinating a few animals within a population will provide an aggregate immunity, since infected animals will die without passing on disease. BadgerBCG, an injectable vaccine, was licensed in March 2010 after a series of trials and has been deployed in several sites, most widely in parts of Gloucestershire and Wales. The Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agencies (AVHLA) badger vaccination trials demonstrated that vaccinating 30% of adult badgers not only protected vaccinated animals against infection, it also resulted in a 79% reduction in bTB risk in unvaccinated cubs 31. BadgerBCG is the same as human BCG. Contrary to the rhetoric, it is not necessary to immunise all badgers every year, just as we don’t need repeat BCGs in people; however, vaccination teams need to return to setts every year to immunise badger cubs and those that were missed. The current method of delivery is via injection, which permits a defined dose and expectations of protection. An oral version of vaccine, which may be a lower maintenance option for landowners and more effective in the long-term, has still to be licensed. A national rollout of injectable badger vaccine programmes, starting in areas where cattle are intensively farmed, and facilitated by the third sector, would protect our wildlife at a lower cost and without the public furore of further culling. A key knowledge gap currently is to what extent vaccination of badgers will affect TB rates in cattle. However, given the tight social structure of badger populations and current movement restrictions on herds, it wouldn’t take many years to identify the scale of this link and any limitations that may require further consideration. This was identified by the EFRA Select Committee in June 2013, who called for “a more coordinated national approach to badger vaccination” and stated that, “There is great enthusiasm among voluntary organisations for deploying the badger vaccine. The Government should not miss the opportunity...” 32. However, it is our moral duty to protect our wildlife as much as our rural economy, and this must be taken into consideration when evaluating value of a national badger vaccination programme. Were eradicating TB in badgers to have little or no impact on TB in cattle, then we would have to reconsider the current approach to intensive farming.

  8  

Working towards a cattle vaccine The most obvious approach to tackling TB in cattle is to vaccinate herds themselves. Many cattle diseases are already controlled by vaccination, including tetanus, lungworm, salmonella and mastitis 33. DEFRA has invested more than £23m since 1998 on cattle vaccines and associated diagnostics and plans to spend a further £9.3m in the next 4 years. So far, DEFRA has been pleased with small, experimental studies, which have demonstrated a reduction in the progression, severity and excretion of TB in vaccinated cattle, as well as a decrease in transmission. However, BCG is not currently licensed for this application. The main problem is that the use of BCG in cattle compromises the SICCT and gamma-interferon tests, which means that vaccinated animals cannot be traded. The AHVLA is therefore developing a new test that can distinguish between infected and vaccinated cattle (the so-called DIVA test). Meanwhile, DEFRA is currently working with the European Commission on how to change current legislation to enable the vaccination of cattle without restricting trade opportunities, including satisfying the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that the test is safe and effective for use 34. In November 2013, Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, wrote to Owen Paterson to recommend a series of steps to work towards the use of a cattle vaccine, starting with substantial experimental research and large-scale trials. These have not yet started 35. A June 2013 an EFRA Select Committee report concluded, “It is perplexing why the Government has maintained that field trials [for cattle vaccination] were prohibited under EU law when, as recent events have shown, this is not the case.” 34. It remains a mystery to the EFRA Select Committee and to everyone else why progress has stalled. Britain has traditionally led the way in Europe on science and innovation and it’s time for us to bite the bullet and start field trials for a cattle vaccine now. Establishing an independent panel for bTB policy-making Currently, bTB policy has been driven by DEFRA under heavy influence from the NFU. Recent mistakes have damaged both. When so much is at stake, it is important that the Government is able to distance itself from lobbying organisations and interested parties, and makes the right policy decisions based on independent scientific evidence and advice. We would recommend that a panel of independent experts be appointed to advise the Government on the direction of bTB policy. This panel, comprising scientists, veterinarians, disease specialists, landowners and wildlife experts, would be able to assess evidence and recommend to the Secretary of State a course of action, including measures to control bTB, the emphasis for future research and the implementation of a long-term plan for eradication. This sort of group is not unprecedented – in March 2011, Caroline Spelman established the Independent Panel on Forestry, chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool and with members appointed for the experience and knowledge of the economic, social and environmental aspects of forestry and woodlands. Establishing an Independent Panel on bTB would also help politically with the current standoff between the two sides of the bTB debate.

  9  

Conclusions   The Coalition Government has already done a great deal to improve the control of TB; the culling trials have only served to distract from the important issues and indeed the emphasis on badgers in bTB spread may have been disproportionate. We have learned a lot from the badger culling trials, but it’s clear that it’s not a plan to stick to and we have to move on. With immediate effect, the Government should begin to: 1. Work with conservation charities to rollout a national injectable BCG badger vaccination programme, as per the recommendation of the EFRA Select Committee. 2. Implement compulsory pre-movement testing between farms within the same holding and prior to agricultural shows and common land grazing. 3. Compel farms that have TB to declare their status to neighbouring holdings. 4. Enforce isolation regulations and slaughter any new-born calves of reactors. 5. Increase the use of the g-IFN test, alongside the SICCT test. 6. Take the lead, alongside a major commercial herd, in field trials of a cattle vaccine, in order to aid the progression of legislation to permit the license of cattle BCG in Europe and trading of vaccinated cattle. 7. Appoint an Independent Panel on bTB to advise the Government on bTB policy direction now and in the future. 8. Push for more intuitive agricultural subsidies from the EU, which incentivise good management rather than simply encouraging high yields.

  10  

References   1. Figures reveal badger cull cost £7m – shock stats prove each dead badger cost £4000+, Care for the Wild, 7 Jan 2014, www.careforthewild.com/2014/01/badgercullcost7m/ 2. Stop the badger cull, Number 10 e-petitions, 7 Sep 2013 epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257 3. Whisper it quietly, Defra: TB cattle slaughter rates down by nearly 10% on 2012, Farming Monthly, 12 Dec 2013, www.farmingmonthly.co.uk/livestock/animal-health/7998-whisper-quietly-defra-tb-cattle-slaughter-rates-nearly-10-2012 4. Vaccination in the Control of Bovine TB, ZSL, www.zsl.org/science/events/vaccination-in-the-control-of-bovine-tb,773,EV.html 5. Badger Vaccine Deployment Project, DEFRA, www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/science/bovine-tb/bvdp/ 6. Badger and cattle vaccination initiative, BACVI, http://www.bacvi.co.uk 7. Bovine TB – Key conclusions from the meeting of scientific experts, held at Defra on 4th April 2011, DEFRA, 4 Apr 2011, archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/bovinetb-scientificexperts-110404.pdf 8. Badger cull target halved after ministers admit original figures were too high, Express, John Ingham, 8 Oct 2013, www.express.co.uk/news/nature/435328/Badger-cull-target-halved-after-ministers-admit-original-figures-were-too-high 9. Badgers moving the goalposts? It’s the government that’s playing football with badger cull policy, Lib Dem voice, Andy Boddington, 10 Oct 2013, www.libdemvoice.org/badgers-moving-goalposts-its-the-government-thats-playing-football-with-badger-cull-policy-36621.html 10. Crackdown on cattle movement and TB testing announced, Guardian, Damian Carrington, 19 Oct 2012, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/19/cattle-movement-bovine-tb-testing 11. History of bovine TB, TB Free England (NFU), www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/assets/4148 12. Badger and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2007-8, page 55, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvfru/130/130i.pdf 13. Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence: Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, DEFRA, June 2007, p 14, archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/isg/report/final_report.pdf 14. How Now Mad Cow? Professor Richard Lacey, www.mad-cow.org/lacey.html 15. Archive: FMD 2001 outbreak, DEFRA, archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/2001/ 16. Bovine TB risk in Britain: Past and Present, Durham University, www.dur.ac.uk/ihrr/resources/podcastranscripts/bovinetb 17. Monthly publication of national statistics on the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle to end Sep 2013 for Great Britain, DEFRA, 11 Dec 2013, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271223/bovinetb-statsnotice-11dec13a.pdf 18. Monthly publication of national statistics on the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle to end Sep 2013 for Great Britain, DEFRA, 12 Feb 2013, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278967/bovinetb-statsnotice-12feb14.pdf 19. Revisions to bovine TB statistics, DEFRA, Feb 2013, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278969/bovinetb-revisions-12feb14.pdf 20. Simplification of the testing instructions for cattle herds affected by aTB breakdown, AHVLA, 23 Dec 2013 www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/category/news/ 21. Changes to TB Cattle Movement Controls, Bovine TB Information Note 05/12, DEFRA, Oct 2102, www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/files/tb-infonote-1205-changes-to-movements.pdf 22. Cattle movement controls and surveillance strengthened to tackled bovine TB, DEFRA, 18 Oct 2012, www.gov.uk/government/news/cattle-movement-controls-and-surveillance-strengthened-to-tackle-bovine-tb 23. Farming ‘shortcomings’ undermines case for badger cull, Guardian, Damian Carrington, 4 Oct 2012, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/04/farming-shortcomings-badger-cull-bovine-tb 24. Final report of an audit carried out in the United Kingdom from 5 – 16 Sep 2011 in order to evaluate the operation on the bovine tuberculosis eradication programme, European Commission, ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=9444 25. TB in cattle – the risk to your animals, AHVLA, www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/bovine-tb/ 26. Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain, Nature, M. Gilbert, A. Mitchell, D. Bourn, J. Mawdsley, R. Clifton-Hadley, W. Wint, 26 May 2005, www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/bovine-tb/ 27. Can We Beat bTB in the North West? Livestock North West, Jan 2013, farmnw.co.uk/factsheets/can_we_beat_bovine_tb_in_the_north_west 28. January 2013 Bovine TB update, Frame, Swift and Partners, Jan 2013, www.frameswiftandpartners.co.uk/newsletters/jan13_bovine_tb_update.pdf 29. Badger cull remains despite falling TB in English cattle, Guardian, Damian Carrington, 5 Oct 2012, www.defra.gov.uk/ahwbe/files/bovinetb-workshop-wmidlands.pdf

  11  

30. Sobrino et al 2008, Bovine tuberculosis in a badger (Meles meles) in Spain. Vet Record 163: 159–160. 31. BCG Vaccination Reduces Risk of Tuberculosis Infection in Vaccinated Badgers and Unvaccinated Badger Cubs, Plos One, 12 Dec 2012, www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049833 32. Vaccination against bovine TB – EFRA, www.parliament.uk 5 Jun 2013, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/258/25810.htm 33. Species diseases controlled by vaccines in the UK, BACVI, bacvi.co.uk/cattle_vaccine.html 34. Cattle vaccination, DEFRA, 24 Jan 2013, www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/vaccination/cattle-vaccination/ 35. Brussels, HV/cs/1792649 (13)ANNEX

Contributors  and  Acknowledgements   The author wishes to thank, amongst others, the following people for their help and guidance in compiling this paper: Dr Brian May CBE, Anne Brummer BSc (Hons), Mark Jones BVSc MSc MRCVS, Dr Chris Cheeseman, Luke Springthorpe BA (Hons). Principle author: Graham Godwin-Pearson BSc (Hons). This paper is published by Bow Publications Limited. The views stated in this paper are those of the author only and are not the views of the Bow Group or any of its affiliates. Accordingly, the Bow Group does not accept liability for the contents of the paper. The  Bow  Group                                                                                                                             The Bow Group is a leading think tank based in London. It is the oldest centre-right think tank in the United Kingdom and celebrates its 60th Anniversary in 2012. Founded by a group of recent graduates including Geoffrey Howe and Norman St. John Stevas, its past chairmen have included Michael Howard, Christopher Bland and Norman Lamont. Since its foundation, the Bow Group has been a significant source of policy ideas and many of its papers have had a direct influence on Government policy and the life of the nation. Many of the Bow Group's alumni currently sit in Parliament, including five former officers who were elected at the 2010 General Election. The Bow Group Council is chaired by Cllr. Ben Harris Quinney MSc. If you would like to write for the Bow Group, please contact the Research Secretary, Luke Springthorpe at research@bowgroup.org. © The Bow Group 2014