Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700317 relating to Bovine Tuberculosis control and badger culling.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The petition is titled “End the Badger cull and adopt other approaches to bovine TB control” and was created by Robert Pownall, founder of the group Protect the Wild. The number of signatures has reached more than 102,000, which is a great achievement. The petition states:

“The Government’s TB Eradication Strategy allows the continued killing of badgers, a protected species, until the end of this Parliament, despite the Labour manifesto calling the cull ‘ineffective.’”

It goes on:

“We believe the badger cull is unjustified and must end…We call for an immediate end to the cull and the implementation of cattle focused measures to control bTB, rather than what we see as scapegoating wildlife.”

It is important to note that badgers have been part of the British Isles for at least 250,000 years, and their presence is integral to maintaining our ecosystem balance. Bovine tuberculosis has had a terrible impact on the English countryside, wildlife and farmers. In the past 10 years, 278,000 infected cattle have been ordered to be slaughtered and more than 230,000 badgers have been culled.

I was surprised to learn that culled cows that are found to have one visible lesion can enter the food chain if the lesioned area is removed. Those with two or more lesions are deemed unsafe and cannot enter the food chain. Farmers receive compensation for the slaughtered cattle, and almost £23 million was paid out in 2024. As a side note, that may be something to consider in any future food-labelling schemes or policies, as I am sure many consumers would like to know whether they are eating a cow that had tuberculosis.

On 30 August 2024, the Government announced the start of work on their new strategy to tackle bovine tuberculosis, and the goal of achieving the status of England being officially free of bovine tuberculosis by 2038. I look forward to hearing more about that from the Minister.

One way to achieve that status is through an increase in vaccination. The Government said in their response to the petition that the

“development of a cattle vaccine…is at the forefront”

of their solutions. Field trials of the cattle Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine and the companion test to detect infections among vaccinated animals—which is often called the DIVA test—have been ongoing since June 2021. To increase the roll-out and coverage of badger vaccination the Government also plan to establish a new badger-vaccinator field force, which will go hand in hand with a study to analyse the effect of badger vaccination on the incidence of TB in cattle.

It is important to note that the petitioner’s view is that vaccinating badgers is not the way forward as he believes it continues to push the belief that badgers are responsible for the spread of bovine TB, which he advises is not the case. As we will hear, scientific evidence such as that from Professor Mark Brewer backs up that position.

However, groups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link believe that badger vaccination is a useful tool for replacing badger culling. Their opinion is that as studies show that the majority of infection is from cattle to cattle, some is cattle to badger and a very small minority is badger to cattle, the focus should be cattle based, whether in relation to testing or vaccination, with badger vaccination being a supplementary tool.

The Badger Trust found that 94% of cases are spread from cow to cow and that more cattle were slaughtered in 2021 than in 2013, when the most recent cull started. Vaccinated badgers are also likely to be culled at times. Biosecurity is a fundamental approach to tackling bovine TB, but a survey of farmers carried out by the trust indicated that farm biosecurity was not widely employed by respondents.

The next steps could, then, focus heavily on enhancing biosecurity. In fact, the updated Godfray bovine TB strategy review concluded:

“As a decision has been made to phase out culling it is of great importance to develop effective non-lethal interventions to enable eradication, such as vaccination of badgers or reducing contact between badgers and cattle.”

It went on:

“An unfortunate consequence of the controversy around badger culling and the politicisation of the debate has been a deflection of focus from what can be done by the individual farmer and by the livestock industry to help control the disease. In particular, the poor take up of on-farm biosecurity measures and the extent of trading in often high-risk cattle is severely hampering disease control measures.”

Relevant biosecurity measures include the timely testing of cattle to reduce the risk from cattle movement and the use of multiple forms of testing that combine sensitivity and specificity. Good husbandry—for example, maintaining robust perimeter boundaries, using double fencing and avoiding common grazing and shared watercourses—should also be encouraged.

As a Scottish MP, I note that Scotland has had official tuberculosis-free status since 2009 and stopped badger culling in 2012. The Scottish Wildlife Trust states:

“The decision to begin mass badger culling was made despite the results of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial”

between 1998 and 2005,

“which concluded that ‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’. The study found that reactive badger culling (culling badgers on and around farms with outbreaks of bTB) could actually increase incidences of bTB due to badgers that survive culling roaming beyond their usual range and therefore spreading bTB further”.

Similarly, Wales stopped culling in 2021 and instead focused on cattle and transmission routes. A Veterinary Record study of the impact of badger culling on bovine tuberculosis in cattle in the high-risk area of England claims:

“During the same period as this study, Wales achieved similar reductions in herd bovine TB incidence as England, through the introduction of improved bovine TB testing and other cattle measures, and without widespread badger culling. This suggests that bovine TB in cattle can indeed be controlled through cattle measures alone, as was predicted by the Independent Scientific Group in 2007.”

In 2022, the European Health and Digital Executive Agency found that 17 countries in Europe were designated as free from bovine TB, yet only three countries used the licensed culling of wildlife: England, Ireland and some parts of France. Many are of the view that badgers are not the primary cause of the spread of bovine TB and that culling them is a cruel and ineffective way to tackle the disease. Given all the aforementioned evidence, it is only fair to ask the Government to stop issuing new licences for culls and instead to focus on non-lethal intervention.

I differ slightly in my view. We certainly do not want badgers to be culled unnecessarily, but the evidence shows that a sustained badger cull does reduce TB. Northern Ireland has not had a badger cull and our TB compensation costs are soaring to more than £100 million this year. Reports from Somerset and Gloucestershire show that the badger cull reduced TB rates by 50%. Does the hon. Lady agree that although vaccination is good in theory—I want to get that point across—we need a cull to control TB in the first instance? Certainly, no one wants to see a badger die from TB, because it is quite horrendous.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention but I have to say that I disagree. The evidence is there for the badger cull to end immediately.

On the effectiveness of culling, the scientific papers often refer to the figure of 56%, but when we dig down into the detail it becomes less clear. There was variation in the testing regimes during the period when the apparent reduction was detected, so it was not clear at all. There is certainly a lot of science out there, but none of it is as clear as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) purports.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I still disagree with what the hon. Lady said.

Bovine TB in cattle can be controlled by cattle measures alone, as predicted by the independent scientific group in 2007. Many are of the view that badgers are not the primary cause of the spread of bovine TB and that culling them is a cruel and ineffective way to tackle the disease. With all the aforementioned evidence, it is only fair to ask the Government to stop issuing new licences for culls and instead focus on non-lethal intervention.

I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the argument so well. Badger culling has proved to be ineffective, unscientific and inhumane. Does she agree that we should not see an increase in culling or supplementary culls in no-risk areas, or the extension of any current licences?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

It is time to catch up with countries with lower rates of bovine TB and to focus on similar biosecurity measures rather than cruel culls that kill hundreds of thousands of badgers as well as hundreds of thousands of cows. We know from the bovine TB rates in England that our current strategy is not working, and that targeting animals that make up the least number of transmissions cannot be the way forward.

It is important for everyone that bovine tuberculosis is effectively tackled. Farmers and the Government are losing money, and cows and badgers are dying unnecessarily. New TB herd incidents have fallen by only 1% since the badger cull restarted in 2013, and innocent animals are continuing to die while nothing is improving. There should undoubtedly be more bovine testing, and we must consider options such as the development of the bovine vaccine and the increased roll-out of badger vaccination. In addition, there could be incentives for farmers to take part in such schemes, as well as to adopt enhanced biosecurity.

The previous Government encouraged fearmongering around the role of badgers in spreading the disease, and I encourage this Government not to make the same mistake. Farmers must be supported throughout the strategy and the transition to new methods. If the next strategy is poorly implemented, we risk calls for badger culling to return.

The Government said in response to the petition:

“Existing cull processes will be honoured to ensure clarity for farmers involved in these culls whilst new measures can be rolled out. However, the government has decided that it will not be proceeding with the proposals drawn up under the previous government relating to targeted badger culling.”

In the light of the evidence, I ask the Government to review and cancel all existing cull licences, such as those that Natural England set earlier this year. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as to how a Labour Government will tackle bovine TB and, as a Labour MP, I urge us to follow our manifesto commitment to end the badger cull.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to speak in this important debate. I thank all the petitioners, including the 321 from Glastonbury and Somerton.

Having grown up on a dairy and beef farm, I am all too aware of the devastating impact that TB is capable of unleashing. I also recently attended the dairy industry dinner and the dairy show, both held at the Bath and West showground just outside my constituency, where I spoke to dairy farmers from all over the country and was once again reminded of the emotional trauma they experience when they are told they have reactors in their herd. Farmers rear their animals with exceptional care and are proud to uphold high welfare standards, so when an outbreak occurs, it is the worst news they can receive.

Of course, farming is also a business, and alongside the emotional impact, there is also the financial impact. Currently, farmers receive about £2,000 in compensation for slaughtered cows, but that does not account for the business costs. A family farm in South Barrow in my constituency had been TB free for over 50 years, but a recent suspected case in an animal brought in from a market forced its temporary closure. The family told me that the rules as they stand are not fit for purpose and fail to adapt for different farming practices.

That sounds like a case in the area I represent, where Rachel and Andrew Webber had TB found. They then introduced an additional 11 cows, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said they would be compensated for only 50% of the cost of those cows, given that they were introduced after an ongoing TB outbreak had been found. Does my hon. Friend think that DEFRA should pay 100% compensation for those losses?

I wholeheartedly agree. The financial burden, and also the emotional burden, on farmers is devastating. We know the pressures our farmers are under already. With inheritance tax, the recent withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship scheme coming to an end this year, many farmers are on the brink. As we know, TB leads many to close their farm gates for the very last time, so proper compensation is crucial.

The current testing system is failing animals and failing our farmers. Too many infected animals slip through undetected, and many farmers lose clean stock completely unnecessarily. All the while, the taxpayer spends nearly £30 million per year on compensation alone to UK farmers. In total, the cost of TB is estimated to be well over £100 million per year to the public purse.

I recently visited Gatcombe farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), where the TB eradication project is being led by the farmer, Robert Reed, and his vet, Dick Sibley. The research carried out there over the last 10 years raises important questions for the Minister about how we should solve this problem. That work has shown that undetected infection in cattle is the main driver of transmission and that the current skin-testing method has serious flaws. Some cows pass the test 30 times over, but they fail more advanced blood or faeces tests. Enhanced testing is currently illegal in officially tuberculosis-free herds, despite the fact that the failure to detect TB and the lack of trust in the system are causing so many of the issues.

A farmer in my constituency has engaged in some of the methods suggested by Dick Sibley at Gatcombe and has made practical changes to prevent TB from spreading in her herd. After years of positive tests and the brutal effect on her and her family’s mental health of losing much-loved pedigree animals, the changes appeared to have had the desired effect. However, it took a great deal of time and commitment for her to carry out the research needed to better understand the biosecurity and how to manage the herd—time that many farmers simply do not have. Does my hon. Friend agree that better advice and engagement with farmers would help to ensure they have the resources to understand alternative ways to prevent the spread within a herd?

I absolutely agree: education is critical. It is also critical in allowing research to continue. Of course, that requires funding, but we also need the right capital investment in farms, so that they can carry out the herd management required to stop the transmission of bovine TB.

Does the hon. Lady agree that it could seem counterintuitive to the public for new testing to be illegal and to require the Secretary of State’s intervention, and for testing in herds considered not to have TB to therefore not be possible, allowing undetected cows to be left in herds?

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is saying that detection is important at any stage, and I agree with that. It is absolutely ludicrous that we cannot continue to test all animals in a herd.

The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to develop safe, effective, humane and evidence-based ways of controlling TB. We must invest to produce workable vaccines and surveillance measures that minimise harm to badgers and cattle. The previous Farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), visited Gatcombe farm alongside the current head of the National Farmers Union, and to his credit showed intent on this issue. I urge the Minister to follow in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and also to give an update on whether she will implement the recommendations of the Godfray report.

The UK lags behind other countries in tackling TB, with prevalence still at around 8% of cattle, despite the culling of nearly a quarter of a million badgers since 2013. We must look beyond culling and focus on testing cattle, while investing in further research into badger vaccination. I would also like data sharing to be improved, especially by providing farmers with access to their TB testing data alongside relevant supplementary tests. We must also ensure that governmental agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the British Cattle Movement Service actually talk to each other.

British farming is at a crossroads and this Government must stand up and support our farmers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want an extra £1 billion boost to the farming budget, which would help farmers with capital investment to support herd management and biosecurity, and help break the transmission routes of tuberculosis in cattle. But trust is difficult to build, and unfortunately DEFRA is not conveying confidence to the industry. Farmers are still waiting on the next iteration of the SFI, despite promises that it would come by the end of the summer. We cannot continue to kill our way out of the TB crisis. Solutions must be found to keep our beef and dairy herds OTF. To safeguard the long-term future of British farming, industry and Government must work together to ensure that we reach the target of eliminating TB by 2038.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to those who signed the petition, and to the campaigners, experts and local groups who continue to fight for evidence-based policy on bovine tuberculosis and badger culling.

I do not support the continuation of the badger cull. The evidence on whether it works is at best deeply flawed and at worst deliberately ignored. In June this year, Sir Brian May and vet Dick Sibley from the Save Me Trust visited Parliament to highlight the science. They showed us—as many independent scientists have—that the link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB has been overstated and misrepresented for years. Crucial facts often get ignored. The Government themselves recognised in a previous debate that slurry spreading is a major cause of bovine TB transmission.

Yet instead of tackling that problem head-on, we persist with killing badgers. It has been more than a decade since general testing of all animals was undertaken. The last large-scale testing found that sheep, deer and alpacas showed far higher incidence of bovine TB than badgers, with sheep at about 28%, deer at 22% and alpacas topping the list, at 30%. Badgers, however, came in at only around 7%. That really matters. Even in areas with no badgers present, bovine TB persists, yet we continue to scapegoat this single species.

The science also tells us that badgers become fully infectious with tuberculosis only after about five years, but the average lifespan of a badger in the wild is three to four years. Those badgers that are killed are often too young to have developed TB. It simply does not add up. Fewer than one in 10 badgers tests positive for TB. As one campaigner noted to me, TB is primarily spread by aerosol. So I ask colleagues in more rural constituencies, when was the last time they saw a badger sneeze on a cow?