Animal Welfare: Infectious Diseases

My Lords, I shall speak on the subject of bovine tuberculosis. In so doing, I must declare an interest as the author of the 1997 report on this topic for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already mentioned that bovine TB is a persistent, costly and increasing problem for farmers in Britain. I will not repeat the figures that she gave. I want to focus particularly on the question of bovine TB and badgers. The scientific evidence relating to bovine TB and the policy options available have been reviewed more than a dozen times in the past decade, including in my 1997 review. Those reviews show that the problem is intractable, the science is incomplete and the experts disagree—they may be said to be like ferrets in a sack. However, some facts are beyond dispute. First, there is no reasonable doubt that badgers are part—I emphasise, only part—of the problem. They harbour the disease and transmit it to cattle. With that wildlife reservoir, as the noble Baroness said, the disease will be very hard to eliminate in cattle. It may seem obvious that, if badgers are part of the problem, getting rid of them will be part of the solution. Unfortunately, however, it is not that simple. The culling trials that followed my 1997 report showed that small-scale culling in response to cases of TB actually makes things worse—by, it is estimated, about 27 per cent. Although the reason for that is not clear, it is possibly that culling encourages the movement of badgers and the immigration of new, diseased animals into the areas from which the previous residents have been removed. However, the trials showed that persistent, proactive culling on a large enough scale—what might be called a scorched-earth policy—can work. It was estimated that that could produce a reduction of as much as 25 per cent in herd breakdowns. We should recognise that scale is important in this, because around the edges of the removal area there is an increase in TB in cattle for the reasons that I have alluded to, such as the immigration of badgers. It is estimated that the minimum area for a net benefit, where removal at the middle outweighs the perturbation at the edges, is between 250 and 300 square kilometres. Even on that scale, culling badgers will not completely eliminate the disease. Should the Government therefore initiate large-scale badger culling? The independent scientific group that oversaw the trials said no, the former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, said yes, and the EFRA Select Committee in another place said perhaps. Let us think for a moment what culling would mean. The Select Committee report suggests culling in TB hot spots—the areas mainly in the south-west and south Wales where the risk of TB is high and cattle are tested every year. The total surface area of those hot spots in England and Wales is about 34,500 square kilometres. If one were to undertake the culling of badgers in those places, that would translate into killing 170,000 badgers, which is well over half the British population. Even if culling were only partial and only some of the hot-spot areas were included, the badger mountain would still be very high. What if the Government were to cull only in certain hot spots? Surely affected farmers in other hot spots would justifiably complain, ““Why are we left to suffer?””. Killing half Britain’s badgers would probably be in breach of the Bern convention, and public support for it is not likely to be high. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed to work. In the Republic of Ireland, where there has been large-scale culling since 2002, the incidence of TB in cattle is reported in the Irish Farmers’ Journal to have risen by 15 per cent last year. Perhaps the short-term gains from culling do not last. Large-scale culling is risky in terms of public perception, legality and efficacy. While the long-term solution must be a vaccine, let me end on a positive note for the short term. Although bovine TB is spreading, its net reproduction number—a measure of its rate of spread—is only just over the critical value. If that number can be brought down slightly, the disease will decrease instead of spreading. That could be achieved simply by a combination of more frequent testing and better husbandry, encouraged by offering incentives to keep badgers away from cattle, as is being trialled in Wales. Will the Minister consider adopting the Welsh approach and recognise that large-scale culling is not the answer?