Bovine Tuberculosis

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate. Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 7 July, it provides a useful opportunity to discuss where we go from here, for which I am grateful. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and to the hon. Gentleman. They echo many of the points raised by stakeholders during our discussions in the run-up to the decision on badger culling. The decision not to issue licences to cull badgers for bovine TB control was not easy to make, and I know that many farmers are disappointed, as the hon. Gentleman has articulated. However, based on the available evidence, including the science, we truly believe that it was the right decision. The hon. Gentleman called for a cull of badgers in his area. I can only reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the decision. All the evidence was carefully considered and all views were heard, but in the end we could not be certain that a cull of badgers would improve the disease situation in cattle. Delivering an effective large area cull in practice would be a difficult and costly operation that would need to be sustained for a number of years, and public opposition to culling would increase the challenge of effective delivery. In fact, we believe that there is a risk that culling badgers could make the disease situation in cattle worse. Clearly, such a policy would not be in anyone's interest. Although we have ruled out badger culling, we have made it clear that we remain open to the possibility of revisiting the policy under exceptional circumstances, or if new scientific evidence becomes available. As part of the TB announcement, my right hon. Friend made it clear that vaccination has been made a priority, as recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We are strengthening our programme of research to develop cattle and badger vaccines, and are planning for their deployment by investing £20 million over the next three years. Also, funding will be provided to set up and run a deployment project using injectable badger vaccine, to build confidence in the long-term contribution that badger vaccination could make to tackling bovine TB, and to provide valuable information that could help to bring us closer to the long-term goal of an oral badger vaccine. We need to decide in partnership with industry how best to meet that goal, and therefore the exact nature of the project. However, vaccination is a long-term policy option and a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed. The earliest projected dates for widespread use of vaccines are early 2014 for the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin oral badger vaccination, and mid to late 2015 for BCG cattle vaccines with a differentiating infected from vaccinated animals test. Injectable BCG badger vaccines may be available in 2010 but are not expected to be used widely owing to the cost and acceptability of trapping badgers for injection. We should not lose sight of the fact that, even if successful, vaccination alone will not provide a solution to bovine TB; it can only form part of a programme of measures. There are a number of ways in which vaccination may be used to tackle TB in cattle or badgers, each with associated benefits and problems. At the core of those is the need to balance the costs versus the benefits of disease control, but wider matters need to be taken into account and balanced, including acceptability, practicality, trade, and legal constraints. Work has begun on those considerations to enable the use of a vaccine once it is available. In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the partnership group. A decision on badger culling has been made. Our overriding priority is now to build a strong partnership with the farming industry so that we can consider the priorities for tackling this difficult disease. It is not for the Government to dictate the form and composition of the TB partnership group. The form of those arrangements is just as much a matter for industry as for Government. We hope to begin discussions with industry partners soon. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham raised the issue of TB compensation that has arisen following the recent ruling that the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 breaches the principle of equality for high-value animals. He will not be surprised to hear that we are disappointed by that judgment and are considering whether to appeal. Cattle compensation is a major cost for the taxpayer and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the systems are, as far as possible, fair to cattle farmers and taxpayers. We will not return to the previous system, which resulted in significant and widespread over-compensation with all cattle being valued on an individual basis. There is nothing in the judgment to suggest that we should do that. Indeed, it recognises that the previous compensation arrangements for bovine TB affected cattle resulted in a significant over-compensation problem. We will continue to operate the current table valuation system while we review it in the light of the judgment. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case that is currently in the news of bovine TB in veal calves exported from the UK to the Netherlands. I cannot comment on what he said about Belgium. However, I confirm that my officials have been in close contact with the European Commission and the Dutch authorities in recent days, and have provided a full description of the circumstances of the relevant calf exports. All the TB testing and export certification requirements had been correctly implemented. Discussions with the Commission are continuing. The hon. Gentleman presented his case in a reasonable way and made his points forcefully, as he has previously in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. However, I disagree with the assertion that the Government have done little to tackle TB over recent years. While the randomised badger culling trial was in progress, we introduced measures to supplement the routine cattle testing and surveillance programme. For instance, we implemented zero tolerance of overdue TB herd tests and introduced pre-movement and gamma interferon testing. Those policies are having an effect. The pre-movement testing of cattle that are over 42 days old and are moving out of high-risk herds detected 756 reactor animals in 416 herds in England between March 2006 and April 2008. Those reactors might otherwise have spread disease within buyers' herds. The gamma interferon test identified 5,419 reactor animals from the 47,215 sampled between October 2006 and May 2008. The number of reactors identified by pre-movement and gamma interferon tests shows the worth of those policies. We are grateful to the farming community for its co-operation and commitment. In addition, we have worked with the industry and with vets to produce husbandry guidance and have funded a wide-ranging research programme to look into matters such as how the disease is spread, how we can improve diagnosis and how we can vaccinate against it. We have spent over £110 million on TB research in the last 10 years and about £8.5 million in 2007-08. The Government have been asked whether the eradication of bovine TB is still our aim. Due to the current level of the disease, that is not realistic in the immediate future. Our immediate priority is to work with the new TB partnership group to focus on approaches in the TB strategic framework to control disease and prevent its further spread. Once the disease is under control, the next stage will be eradication. The hon. Gentleman has a proud and distinguished record. He has been a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and set up the all-party group on dairy farmers. He spoke of bringing together Members from all parts of the House. Indeed, Members from all parts of the House have rural areas in their constituencies. It is not right to characterise this debate as rural versus urban. I say to him honestly and genuinely that we did not come to our policy decision by taking an urban perspective. It was difficult to grasp these nettles, but a decision had to be taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would take that decision on his watch.