Westminster Hall Sitting of 10 February 2000

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Agriculture Committee, Session 1998–99 (HC 233), and the Government's response thereto (Session 1998–99, HC 612).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise as acting Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has moved on to higher things—or lower, depending on one's view of the Whips Office. I was pushed into the breach, but I am getting to like the job.
I commend the fifth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on badgers and bovine tuberculosis and I shall speak about the progress made on implementing its recommendations. I should start by saying that the report is good, which is my sincere opinion. The Committee was assisted by Professor Peter Hudson and Professor Tim Roper, who were excellent, stimulating and exciting advisers. The report was the first one produced by our Clerk, Lynn Gardner, who did a skilful and effective job writing it. The inquiry was well handled and I found it fascinating. I knew nothing at all about badgers before we produced the report—I had thought that they lived up in the Press Gallery. The report is a study of animal husbandry, farm procedures, wildlife and the activities of pressure groups on both sides of the issue, so its production was an educational experience.
The inquiry was undertaken because of the rapid spread of bovine tuberculosis. In common with Ministers and the report, I emphasise that bovine TB is not a human health issue, as the risk that it poses to humans is extremely low. However, the disease is an important issue, because herd breakdown is a devastating experience for farmers and destructive to their business. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association argue that compensation arrangements are inadequate, because, even though compensation is paid for slaughtered cattle, no account is taken of farmers' on-going finances. Herd breakdown is a devastating experience that has important repercussions on animal welfare, and it hits an industry that is already hard hit by the BSE crisis.
All those factors have to be taken into account when examining the problem of bovine TB, which is another of the good things that come from the south and spread to the north. Those things include high interest rates, although they have come from the south-east, whereas TB is moving up the country from the south-west. I see from the MAFF report that it has reached the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border, around Ashbourne. As it spreads up the country, its incidence and impact increase: in 1992, 1,626 compulsory slaughters were
114WH
carried out; in 1998, that figure had risen to 6,086; and in the first half of 1999, it had risen to 3,756. It appears that the figures will increase again next year.
That spread and the alarm it generated led to the commissioning of the Krebs report, which was completed in December 1997. It argued that there was compelling evidence of a link between badgers and bovine TB—a link that some badger supporters, including Friends of the Badger, still deny, pointing to other possible sources of infection. The Select Committee report said that all such sources should be considered and researched to see whether the badger is the animal responsible, as the Krebs report suggested. We argued for research on trace elements and for new guidelines on animal husbandry, which the Department has since produced. The Committee also argued that other wildlife species should be considered in the research, and the Ministry acted on that recommendation as well.
However, I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the National Federation of Badger Groups says—in a document that I received this morning, a copy of which I presume the Ministry has also received—that some of the recommendations have not been implemented. Specifically, the National Federation of Badger Groups states:
"The Committee recommendation that MAFF ensure that a thorough and well-designed sampling procedure of wildlife species other than the badger be put in place in the trial to determine if M.bovis can persist in other species when badgers are removed"
has still not been acted upon; the work has still not started. Nor has MAFF provided more funding for research into the relative importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission, which was also recommended in the Select Committee report. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that he will tell the Chamber whether those accusations are justified or whether those recommendations have been responded to.
The Select Committee also recommended that other alternatives should be considered, which is only right and proper if the research is to be adequate. We must point the finger of blame where the blame actually lies and be satisfied that there are no other methods of transmission. The Krebs report was unable to prove scientifically that badgers are responsible—it was unable to demonstrate a causal connection—but it pointed the finger of blame in that direction none the less. As a result, people believe that badgers are responsible and badger extermination by angry farmers continues because they are worried about the risk to their herds.
To determine where the blame lies, Krebs recommended that a proper scientific study be conducted, with 10 triplets in TB hotspot areas. Three different research strategies were to be pursued in each area. The first two were: total extermination—the proactive killing or bumping-off of all badgers at the start of the study; and reactive culling, where badgers are killed as a result of a herd exhibiting TB. The third group was a control, in which there was to be no culling at all—in so far as it is possible to prevent farmers from killing badgers unilaterally.
The Government accepted the Krebs report and set up the Bourne group to oversee the study. Then, in August 1998, the Government announced that they

115WH
would go ahead with the Krebs recommendation, which is where the Select Committee came in. The Select Committee was somewhat worried that the experiment would be over-elaborate and difficult to carry out. The problem is not one of pure science: because it involves ecology, husbandry and human relations, it is not like a laboratory experiment in which it is possible to produce sound results.
The study was always likely to be subject to vagaries, such as whether farmers would continue to kill badgers illicitly. That is an inevitable human reaction, on which—unfortunately—I commented during one of the Committee's sittings. It was unfortunate because a friend from New Zealand had sent a group of badger enthusiasts down from Craven, having first told them that I would as least give them a fair and favourable hearing. The delegation then heard the hon. Member for Great Grimsby saying that, if he were a farmer, he would go out with a machine gun and mow the bastards down—not the delegates, the badgers. That incautious remark attracted an enormous amount of mail, mainly abusive and some of it purporting to come from badgers, but it made me realise that I should keep my mouth shut. Those are not my feelings—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) tells me that they are, but I was, as a representative of an urban constituency, merely speculating on the possible reaction of farmers to the disruption.
The trials could be disrupted by badger enthusiasts who decide, on humanitarian grounds, to make it harder to kill badgers. It was always going to be a difficult scientific approach and it will be hard to be consistent. I suggested that the trials should be cut down and speeded up. My amendment to that effect was vetoed tumultuously—the voting figures are in the back of the report, if hon. Members want to discover the extent of my sarcasm. However, the Krebs recommendations were simplified and modified by the Bourne report to make them acceptable to the Select Committee. Our main concern was one of speed and delay.
The Select Committee report is dated April 1999—a document of the last century, and it is distressing to find that it has not been implemented as fully, quickly and effectively as we wanted it to be. The delay puts greater pressure on farmers to act unilaterally and creates more difficulties in the areas in which bovine TB is spreading. Herd breakdown is a problem that is galloping ahead of us, and the Ministry must catch up quickly. If research is delayed, there will be increased pressure from farmers: they will want to know why we are floundering around when something more should be done immediately. Farmers will not view this as a scientific or academic issue, but as one that is vital to their livelihoods and continued activity on their farms.
I accept that MAFF is a piggy in the middle—that is, perhaps, not the best phrase to use, given that Agriculture questions today were largely devoted to the pig industry crisis. The Ministry is under pressure from Friends of the Badger and the farming lobby, yet has had a counsel of perfection urged upon it. However, the major delays in establishing the triplets that had occurred before the Select Committee met have continued. The Select Committee and the Bourne report
116WH
wanted the system to be up and running by February 2000, but here we are, in February 2000, and the Governments first report tells us that, although progress has been made, only six of the 10 triplets have been enrolled and culling has begun in only three.
We are well behind schedule. The latest Bourne group report, which was published last week, is moving the target for identifying the triplets to the end of this year, with culling starting in only seven of the 10 triplets. The problem has arisen because of disruption and the difficulty in recruiting staff and identifying areas, but it is longstanding and urgent action is required. We need accurate information that allows us to pin the blame where it belongs and to develop an approach to cope with the problem, but we may not get that information until 2005, or possibly later. Meanwhile, bovine TB will rampage on, and that is exactly what the Select Committee wanted to avoid.
Delays happen for all sorts of reasons. I deprecate the fact that badger lovers have interfered with the trials: by so doing, they have failed to put their case as effectively as they should have done. It is no use blindly or blandly asserting that the badger is innocent: we need to know, and there is no way to identify the problem without the research. Nor is it useful for the Friends of the Badger to put great emphasis, as that organisation did in its evidence to the Committee, on vaccines, whether for badgers—which would be difficult—or for cows. The Committee recommended greater research effort in respect of both, but laid the main emphasis on cattle vaccine. Effort must be made to develop vaccines, but we do not have one yet and a vaccine might not solve the problem anyway. In the meantime, the Krebs recommendations must be implemented so that we can discover what is responsible for herd breakdown.
I am not here to adjudicate between badger lovers, who in some ways have overreacted, and MAFF, which has in a sense underreacted. It has been too dilatory, perhaps for financial reasons. I know, from the impact on the fishing industry, the state of MAFF's accounts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchell: I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding his head in worry. I hope that such problems are not blighting his life, but they are certainly not making the research any speedier.
The Select Committee's view was that research to secure an understanding of the matter needed to be expedited. One issue to be addressed is the delay in getting started, but another relates to research on the road traffic accident survey—post mortems on badgers killed on the roads. Unless we are to assume that a badger infected with TB is more vulnerable to being killed on the roads, because it moves less quickly or is more stupid, it is safe to suppose that sampling from badgers killed on the roads will give us an idea of the incidence, scale and spread of the disease. The CLA has stated in representations that post mortems have been halted because of health and safety concerns. Have they been halted? When will they restart? It is difficult to picture dead badgers in cold storage waiting for the research to resume—or for MAFF's period of

117WH
overspend to pass so that the funding can be provided, but it must be provided, because badger autopsies do not come cheap. The Government's latest reply on the issue is not very cheerful.
The Government need to get on with appointing an independent statistical adviser to verify the statistics and the results. MAFF's initial reply to the Select Committee was that that would be done, but I understand that it has not been done. The Select Committee made various suggestions on how to fine tune the research to make it more sophisticated and effective. We wanted more information and progress reports, better public awareness and education and better liaison with the Bern convention. We got action on that: in July 1999 the Government did what our report recommended and, in December 1999, a standing committee of the Bern convention agreed that the cull proposed in the triplets was in accord with the convention. One might wish that that statement had been made earlier, but it came and it was a direct result of the Agriculture Committee's intervention. We wanted more information: we wanted to know when cattle had their last tuberculosis test and better liaison with farmers.
The sophisticated recommendations have been acted upon, which narrows the focus of our concern to issues of money and speed of action. The report's main point remains the most important, nine months on. Bovine TB is a serious issue, and the short-term problem is getting worse, causing increasing anxiety in the farming community. The longer the research is delayed, the more long-term policies and proposals get put back. As the Committee's acting spokesman, my message to the Minister is, "Get on with it".
2.51 pm
Mr. James Paice: On behalf of the Opposition, I start by congratulating the Select Committee on Agriculture on its report, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his introductory speech. He is not renowned for sycophancy and he lived up to his reputation this morning, but I am sure he agrees with my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who was Chairman of the Agriculture Committee when it deliberated on the important issue that we are debating today.
I understand that either the Government or MAFF put a great deal of pressure on the House authorities to prevent today's debate from taking place. If that is true, it is a great shame. I regret that our debate is being held in Westminster Hall and not in the Chamber, because, as the Minister said in the Chamber earlier today, the issue is crucial. The former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), used to say that, as an issue facing MAFF, bovine TB was second in importance only to BSE, and I would not disagree with his conclusion.
I shall refresh hon. Members minds as to the scale of the issue. The Krebs committee, set up by the previous Government, reported in December 1997; it used 1995–96 statistics, which are now out of date because of the spread of the disease since that time. The latest figures, which go up to the end of October 1999, show that, in the preceding two full years, there was a
118WH
47 per cent. increase in confirmed cases of the disease in England and a 44 per cent. increase in Great Britain as a whole. Although we welcome it, no one can understand why the figure for Great Britain dropped to 14 per cent. in the first 10 months of 1999.
Equally serious is the number of incidents in herds that have not had breakdowns in the previous 10 years. In what was the county of Avon, 15 of 25 incidents were in herds that had not had a breakdown in the previous 10 years; in Cornwall, it was 103 of 139, and in Devon, 54 of 99. That shows that more than half the outbreaks take place in new locations, among herds that have not had an outbreak for 10 years. The frontier counties into which the disease is spreading show a similar, or worse, picture: in Staffordshire, 29 of the 30 cases were in herds that had not had an outbreak in 10 years; in Shropshire, four out of five cases; and all six cases in Derbyshire occurred in herds that had not had a case for 10 years. The figure on MAFF's website for England, excluding the west region, shows that there were 17 cases in 1995, rising to 57 cases in 1998, in herds in which there had been no previous incidents. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, the number of cattle slaughtered rose by 76 per cent. in those four years.
The Opposition support the outcome of Professor Krebs's deliberations, but we must recognise that the situation has worsened considerably since his committee considered it. Wherever I go in the country, there is talk about how helpless farmers feel and their threat—I shall use no stronger word—to take illegal action because they feel that nothing else is being done.
The Government abandoned the previous Government's policy of interim culling as soon as they took office. It is not unreasonable to conclude that that might be one reason why outbreaks in 1998 rocketed by more than 40 per cent. The Opposition do not advocate unnecessary culling, but a sense of proportion is required. The badger population in this country is not under threat—studies have demonstrated that there are between 300,000 and 450,000 badgers—and the animal health issue is an important one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a major human health issue—touch wood; we hope that it does not become one—but we must address the animal health issue, which affects not only cattle but other wildlife species, including badgers.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend not see a paradox between the Government's attitude on taking a precautionary cull outside the Krebs trial plots where badgers are linked to TB and their precautionary principle in banning beef on the bone?
Mr. Paice: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall consider areas outside the trial plots later.
Paragraph 127 of the report says clearly:
"We are also concerned at the lack of urgency displayed by MAFF officials in implementing the trial and other aspects of the programme."
Paragraph 7.8.20 of the Krebs report says of the trial:
"We recommend that it is initiated within four months (by the spring of 1998)."

119WH
Professor Bourne's report, issued 19 months after Krebs, stated that culling had started in three triplets. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby incorrectly said that culling had started in seven.
Mr. Mitchell: I said that it would have started in seven by the end of this year.
Mr. Paice: I apologise if I had misunderstood. There are currently only three, with no more until the end of the closed season—culling will not take place until the summer.
In two years, only six out of 10 triplets at most will be up and running; four have not yet been identified. There are countless examples in the Committee's report and in the Krebs report of problems due to the delays, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred.
The Opposition believe that the trials are essential and that they should be supported by those on all sides of the debate. The hon. Gentleman was right—we must find out the facts. Even those who are rightly and understandably concerned about the culling of badgers should accept that we must get as near the truth as it is possible to be, given the vagueness of science. We could finally clear up not only whether there is a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB, but how significant the link is in the spread of TB and whether culling makes any difference.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers' anecdotal evidence should still be considered? It might not be statistical, but it could suggest what is going on.
Mr. Paice: I entirely agree—there is a mass of anecdotal evidence about badgers, which is widely believed in the farming community and outside. As Krebs himself recognised, everything points to that, although there is not the scientific evidence to prove a link. I hope that the trials will either prove it or disprove it.
I wholly condemn any disruption of those trials and any threats to or victimisation of the operators, who are fulfilling a need. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will use every method possible to protect the operators and ensure that the trials proceed as quickly as possible. However, given what the trials involve, it should be borne in mind that the Ministry and its operators are under an obligation to ensure that the trials are conducted as humanely as possible. Last year's television programme clearly showed that the guidelines were not being followed in at least one or two cases, so the Government must ensure that they are.
Conclusion (h) of the Committee's report states of the rate of incidence of bovine TB:
"MAFF should pay more attention to identifying the principal cause of this increased rate. One approach would be to apply models and examine whether the spatial and temporal patterns observed could be accounted for as a consequence of the cessation of the badger cull in 1997."
I entirely agree with that, but it is wishful thinking to believe that the Government would do it. MAFF would worry that such an approach would prove that the cessation of the culling had made the problem worse.
120WH
The Committee addresses the issue of vaccines at length. Krebs rightly points out that cattle vaccines would be easier to develop and certainly easier to administer than badger vaccines. We also need to develop a test to determine whether a cow is infected with TB that would not be compromised if the cow had been vaccinated. Thus, a double development is needed. Krebs also says—Professor Bourne said the same—that it will be 10 or 15 years before such a vaccine is developed. Interestingly, that has been the figure given for the past 20 or 30 years: in previous investigations into TB in cattle, a cattle vaccine has always been said to be 10 years away, so it does not seem to be getting any closer. That might not be surprising when seen in the light of one of Professor Krebs' statements. He said:
"Currently no money is targeted at this specific area although 26 per cent. of MAFF's total TB research budget is spent on the related area of badger vaccines."
Will the Minister tell us how much is now being spent on the development of cattle vaccines?
The question of husbandry rightly received some attention from the Select Committee. Professor Krebs made various recommendations, including one that
"the possibility of testing various proactive husbandry strategies should be explored with the farming industry."
I am aware that the Government have now set up a husbandry panel, but its first meeting was about a month ago—more than two years after the outcome of the Krebs report in December 1997 and therefore another example of immense delay. The previous Government published advice leaflets that, I acknowledge, were withdrawn more than five years ago; however they were replaced only in the middle of 1999, despite the advice of Krebs and Professor Bourne.
Mention was made of carcase testing and the Health and Safety Executive's prevention of the testing of badger carcases for TB, whether they come from the trials or are traffic accident casualities. I hope, but doubt, that the Minister will tell us that those laboratory tests are to recommence. There is a huge backlog to be dealt with, which will prevent the recommencing of any road traffic accident testing, although that approach has a lot to commend it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) suggested, I shall turn to the issue of farmers who are outside the trial areas.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend will be aware of the nine-point action plan recommended by the National Farmers Union in light of the Krebs report. Does he agree that farmers in the control areas are at special risk and remain completely exposed? Does he think that there is a case to be made for comprehensive compensation, bearing in mind the fact that those farmers are quite helpless and—mixing my metaphors like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—are being made into guinea pigs?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I would have made that point if I had kept going for another 30 seconds.
We welcome the Government's decision to increase the compensation rate to 100 per cent. of the animal's value. We have no wish to decry that. The Select Committee referred to the NFU's proposals and urged

121WH
the Government to give serious consideration to its nine-point plan. The NFU proposals were sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a year ago, but they have yet to be acted on. The Government's latest response is that discussion is in progress. A year on, we are no further forward; in the meantime, as has been said repeatedly, in the Select Committee and elsewhere, breakdowns are continuing at an ever increasing rate.
The NFU told the Select Committee that the average cost per farm of a breakdown is £3,000 a month. The whole process costs the vast majority of those who experience it at least £18,000. On average, about 1,200 herds are under restriction at any time. Therefore, the cost to the industry is more than £3.5 million a month, at a time when dairy and beef sectors are in serious difficulties. The NFU estimate that 50 per cent. of breakdowns may occur outside areas that are covered by the survey or by control areas of triplets in which there is no culling.
The independent study group examined the idea of culling outside trial areas and concluded that that would serve no useful purpose. I hope that that proposition has not been wholly discounted and that it will be re-examined when the Government panels have given the matter further consideration. However, the study groups's report, which was published only on Monday, stated that illegal culling would hamper the trial and would, at the very least, extend it before it had any sufficient statistical power in relation to triplet years. That is another reason why farmers and others, however desperate, will not take part in illegal culling.
Nevertheless, many farmers feel that they have been hung out to dry during the trials, which involve a much greater time scale than was envisaged by Krebs. It will be 2005 before the 50 triplet years are complete, which Krebs said was necessary for statistical power to be achieved. In the meantime, much of the country—involving, perhaps, 50 per cent. of the outbreaks—receives no help at all. The Government should re-examine consequential costs with a view to securing at least some compensation. That would discourage farmers from taking the law into their own hands.
I shall make a few more proposals in the spirit of productivity. There has been no study of the terms of the existing movement restriction rules, which have been the same for many years. They may be too lax, too tight or just right; what is certain is that they have a huge impact on farms, as the NFU figures demonstrate. Under those restrictions, farmers can only move their stock to slaughter, so they require extra housing, possibly extra winter forage and certainly more working capital, which is not easily come by at present.
At least the calf processing scheme provided an outlet for farmers who traditionally sold their calves at a few days old. Now, they are just one more example of animals being shot at birth, which is happening in all too many parts of the country today as a result of the crisis in the industry. I hope that the Minister will also consider introducing a specific calf processing aid programme for farms that are under restrictions because of an outbreak. He might also agree to instigate an immediate study of those restriction orders. It may show that they are perfectly correct, but in view of the huge impact that they have on farms, it is reasonable at this stage to ask that such a study be carried out.
122WH
My second point concerns TB testing. Most areas of Great Britain are tested every four years. According to EU directive 97/12, annual testing is required unless less than 1 per cent. of the herd is infected; testing is required every two years if infection is between 0.2 per cent. and 1 per cent. and every three or four years if it is under 0.2 per cent. I understand that, in practice, decisions about the frequency of testing are left to the local office of the Ministry and the State Veterinary Service. Annual testing is done only in the real hotspots. There is a strong body of opinion that says that we should change to annual testing everywhere, because it would identify infected cattle much more quickly, before they developed visible lesions.
I would not go quite that far, but I remind the Minister that, not only is the incidence rising, but it is spreading into frontier counties in the midlands, north-west and south Wales. He should immediately reintroduce annual testing in those areas to try to stop the disease spreading further, even while the Krebs trials are taking place. I know that not all farmers would welcome annual testing, but that would be better than watching the spread going on and on and the breakdowns continuing to rise at their current rate.
I am grateful to you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to respond on behalf of the Opposition to an excellent report that covers a number of issues. It is a pity that the Government sent their response to the Committee, because it is not now available to the rest of us as a result of no longer being the Government's property. The Minister kindly said that he would have given it to me if he could, but he could not. He knows what is in it and members of the Committee know what is in it, but hon. Members who are not members of the Committee have not seen it because the Committee itself is required to publish it. That will obviously detract from the debate.
Overall the report is a sad indictment of MAFF and a tale of woeful complacency in taking action on the Krebs recommendations. The Government talk of urgency and all their rhetoric is about the need to address a serious problem, but they are taking years to do what should have been done in months. It is another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. At the end of the day the Government will be judged on their actions, not their rhetoric.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has an opportunity this afternoon to convince the industry, not only that he takes the issue seriously, but that he will put enough money into all aspects of the independent study group's recommendations. He could say that money is not a problem when addressing such a serious crisis. I hope that he will immediately decide what he is going to do in the rest of the country, which is suffering while these trials are taking place.
I am worried about how disillusioned and dispirited farmers, who are already desperate because of the economic situation in their industry, will react if they feel that nothing is being done to address the problem in the majority of the country. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, and I am not the only one asking them. Farmers the length and breadth of the country, whose livelihoods are under immense threat because of

123WH
the spread of this scourge of a disease, want answers. I hope that the Government will take heed of the Committee's recommendation and act now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me remind hon. Members that if the Government have replied to the Select Committee but the reply has not been published, the document is still privileged and its contents should not be referred to. So let us stop getting into trouble before we start.
3.14 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: As I have not seen the document, I shall not be falling into that trap.
Many aspects of this difficult and tragic problem are matters of dispute, mainly between farmers and their representatives and those who rightly want badgers protected. We often find ourselves in the crossfire and it is difficult to provide an objective way forward. I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, which is balanced and well presented. It should be read by anyone interested in the subject.
Three things are beyond dispute. First, delays are not due only to the present Government. I recall that the previous Conservative Government were undecided about what to do, even before the Krebs group was established. Time was lost and we are now many years down the line from when farmers first began to suffer from the problem. There were delays in getting the triplets study set up; the report, dated April 1999, was delayed; and the Government's response in June was delayed. We are now nearly a year on from when the report was first presented and we have heard about many other delays.
Secondly, we all recognise that the situation is complex and that there is no definitive explanation, despite an enormous amount of anecdotal and other evidence. It is not a simple problem and there is no simple solution. Those on either side of the argument who pretend that there is a clear and simple solution are doing themselves no credit.
Thirdly, no one can deny that the incidence of bovine TB is increasing. It is increasing as we sit here debating it today as it has over several years. The disastrous effects should be tackled urgently. We can surely all agree about that.
I am sure that Professor Krebs' proposals are scientifically sound, but they depend greatly on the link with bovine TB in cattle and the clear presumption that badgers are the culprits. The trials have sought to prove that link. However, we know that bovine TB is found in other animals—deer, rats, squirrels and other wildlife. It can be argued that the trials are insufficiently rigorous about causes other than the assumed badger-cattle link, which could prevent us from searching for other potential links.
The Ministry is vague about the impact on animal husbandry, another area of great difficulty. The benefit of improved husbandry on the incidence of disease is not examined fully enough. Are the arrangements in non-trial areas adequate, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)? It must be
124WH
worth examining the NFU's proposals about action against small satellite outbreak areas, even during the trial period. It is difficult to envisage how it would affect the scientific data arising from trial areas.
There is a lack of a sense of urgency to develop a vaccine for TB. I did not realise that it had been going for quite so long. However, research and development were always going to take a long time and there seemed no great urgency to begin. Now here we are so many years down the line and still there are no concrete proposals for developing a vaccine. That lack of progress is in a way a criticism. We are always focusing on the badger, which may be right, but if we do not keep an open mind and fail to put money into other potential aspects, the criticism is fair.
A triplet trial is taking place in my constituency. Some of the officers and others have undoubtedly suffered in that their vehicles have been vandalised and some badgers have been released and so on, which is deplorable. That does not assist experimental trials or the preparation of the relevant data. We need to speed up existing trials. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the trials have slowed down when the matter is clearly urgent.
Farmers who are asked to participate in trials and are part of a control area where no badgers are to be culled are clearly exposed to the continuing effects of the disease. It is difficult to understand why they should not be compensated for their negative role. They feel that they are contributing to the experiment and to information that comes from it, and feel keenly about being made to pay such a heavy price.
Post mortem testing has been mentioned. I have never seen quite so many badgers at the roadside as I have in the past year or two. I do not know whether it is to do with driving or the number of badgers, but there must be enormous potential evidence that should be of great assistance to the data that will be made available. Surely this makes sense in post mortem testing of badgers.
We also feel that the Government should work much more closely with the industry. We are delighted that the TB forum has been set up. It will help farmers to feel more involved in the process. I welcome that and hope that their deliberations and any reports will not be kept secret, because a certain amount of openness will be helpful, even if from time to time it brings emotions to the fore.
The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have decided to act on Krebs, and we welcome again the TB forum. The need is urgent, but the current trials are clearly going too slowly. It has been suggested that that is due to a lack of resources, but I hope that that is not so. Perhaps the Minister will say something about it. We hope that the post mortem of badgers will be restarted. The incidence of the disease in the country is increasing; in the far south-west it is an extremely difficult matter. Farmers are faced with it, and there is no slowing down. A sense of urgency needs to be re-injected into the whole process of experiments.
We trust that the Government will reconsider the compenation question, especially for farmers involved in trials and control, as well as—this was again turned down this morning—the consequential loss suffered by producers on account of herd breakdown. This disease has potentially the same devastating effect on the

125WH
industry as BSE. Part of the problem with BSE was that we did not get hold of it quickly enough. I hope that the same will not occur with bovine TB and that the Government will put resources in at the front end and inject a sense of urgency, to enable us to understand the disease, decide how it is spreading and tackle it as quickly as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I make clear my previous ruling? It referred to the document received by the Select Committee yesterday, not to the Government response dated 30 June 1999.
3.25 pm
Mr. David Drew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be wary about what I read. I am not sure which document we are talking about, because there have been so many, so I shall tread gently.
I am delighted to take part in the debate on what is clearly a complex, detailed and emotive subject. Those of us who have studied it in depth for some time know the conflicts and difficulties of trying to reach a preferred position. It is important to consider the position as a whole. We are here to discuss the Select Committee's report, which follows the Krebs and Bourne reports. This week, we received the report of the independent scientific group, which made many points about the progress of the experiment.
To me, the background is daunting. So prevalent is the disease that I do not think that there is a dairy farm in my area—which is mainly dairying—that has not been shut comparatively recently, or that is not shut now, or that does not live under continual fear of being shut. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out that the numbers tailed off a little last year. It is too early to say anything about this year. Gloucestershire is the focus of a major cluster, as the path of the disease leads out of the south-west.
We have to try to understand the complexities. Several hon. Members have commented on what might be deemed to be the cause of the disease, but we must tread carefully because, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, we cannot be certain about the root cause. I should like to talk a little about the transmission mechanism which in some senses is more important than the cause.
I am fortunate in having within my constituency the Woodchester project, which has been investigating the issue for more than 20 years and probably knows more about it in the round than any other scientific investigation. As for my background, I have only recently joined the Select Committee so I have no ownership of the report. I sat in on some of the evidence-giving sessions and found them illuminating. They gave rise to a debate that was worth while, even if it offered no greater clarity about the cause of this dreadful disease.
The subject is sensitive and emotive, and my knowledge of some of the problems in the field is only second-hand. It is difficult to criticise the Government for things that may be only partly within their control. As anyone who knows anything about the trials is aware, there have been considerable difficulties in
126WH
attempting to carry them out. Given the pressure to get on with them, we must use common sense when describing what has taken place and in explaining the reasons why the trials have not progressed as smoothly as they might have done.
We agree that bovine TB is apparently getting worse. As it is apparently a cyclical disease, it should by now have begun to wane; there was some evidence of its waning last year, but the disease is spreading. the potential height of the peak causes us to fear what may happen in future, so we want to know what causes the increased incidence. We must look beyond the areas that traditionally suffer—the south-west is the core—and recognise that the disease is spreading outwards and causing alarm in places that have traditionally not feared it.
Although we must discuss animal welfare issues, about which various arguments are made, we should recognise that, fundamentally, we are dealing with raw economics. The suffering of farmers who have to deal with herd breakdowns should not be underestimated. At least one person whose farm is currently closed is present for the debate. I know what closure does: it has an enormous effect on income and expenditure, as well as on human beings. Having witnessed breakdowns, I cannot think of any worse psychological experience than having to sit and wait for your next test—at best a rather rudimentary procedure—and then wait for your results to emerge. Those of us who are not in farming cannot understand that unpleasant experience, but we can at least sympathise.
There is concern that bovine TB is attracting more of a stigma because of increasing knowledge about it. A farm that has been closed subsequently has to go on with its business subsequently. It may encounter problems in selling animals, although I do not want to emphasise that too much. Traceability makes the cause of problems more obvious, which does not make the job of the farmers concerned any easier.
We must start by considering what is ruled in and what is ruled out. For all sorts of reasons, the Government maintain that the wholesale slaughter of badgers should not be considered. In response to Krebs and in other statements, they have said that such a slaughter is not on the agenda, and previous Governments have concurred with that view. We are looking for solutions, and the Committee's report is clearly a part of that process. We are also trying to bring different parties on board: I remind hon. Members that, even with the best will in the world, some of those parties will not necessarily agree—there is a degree of conflict, not only about the practicalities, but about the science and the philosophy of which is the most important animal. We cannot hide from such disagreements.
Every other strategy tried has failed. We can see that by looking back to the early days, when my own county discovered the impact of bovine TB—I should say rediscovered, as the disease is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) was just whispering to me about a series of programmes on farming in the 19th century. Bovine TB may not have been understood then, but some of its impact was realised. It came back to haunt us with a vengeance in the early 1970s—some would say that it returned even earlier. At that time, various badger control strategies were considered. Farmers were licensed to kill badgers

127WH
in those days, but that did not solve the problem. They then went through the gassing episode; that option was eventually ruled out, even though some would argue that it was the only effective way of dealing with the problem. Gassing was seen to be too cruel and it did not stop the disease, which came back yet again.
Attempts to tackle the problem included the Zuckerman review; the Dunnet review, which introduced the clean-ring strategy; and proactive culling in Thornbury, in a constituency next door to mine. I do not know whether any hon. Members have read the interesting report on the Thornbury experiment, which changed my mind to some extent. I am told that, although it was not a scientific appraisal, it gave a clear exposition of the impact on cattle of clearing an area of badgers and keeping it clear. The previous Government led us into a sort of moratorium, which, with the best will in the world, has not worked. There is now an even greater incidence of bovine TB.
That is the nature of the problem. Anybody who thinks that there is a quick fix—a strategy that can be implemented and will work within months or even years—is deluded. No scheme yet implemented has worked. That is the difficult background against which we must consider this awful disease. The Government have a clear five-point strategy, the first strand of which is to protect public health. The second strand is vaccine development, even though there is concern that the wholesale vaccination of cattle might mean that you affect TB-free status.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about bovine tuberculosis. The hon. Gentleman's speech contains too many "yous", which refer to me, and I have not been tested for tuberculosis since I was 12.
Mr. Drew: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not say that you were in any way part of the tuberculosis problem.
The Government's strategy also includes the prevention of cattle-to-cattle spread and research trials. We have concentrated on those trials, but they are only part of the overall programme investigated by the Select Committee. That is what we should be discussing.
The basis of my argument is that science has caused the problem and we must use science to sort it out. The background is immensely complicated and the disease itself is unpredictable. The problem involves animal welfare: we need to protect cattle, badgers and other species that might play a part in the spread of disease. Some of those animals—rats, deer, foxes, ferrets and feral cats—are being trapped as part of the Government's programme. I am trying to avoid what might be described as "speciesism", because there are dangers in that approach, but I am alarmed when people say, "It can't be the badger", or, "It must be the badger". Both arguments are wrong. We must learn how science can enable us to find real explanations.
One reason for the delay is that the Government's strategy has been questioned. In clarifying their intentions to the Bern convention, they proved that they are neither involved in the worst sort of animal welfarism, nor culling for the sake of it. There is a
128WH
rationale and we are in the midst of a long-term strategy. I hope that we will get some early evidence, but it must be borne in mind that it will be years before concrete results emerge. The issues are complicated, involving epidemiology, pathogenesis and immunology, all of which need to be investigated before we decide whether we can vaccinate.
I want to separate the causal features from the transmission features, because it is important that we examine both. Although one can lead to the other, they are not necessarily a sequitur. In terms of causes, we always start with the strong circumstantial evidence that there is a badger-to-cattle infection. However, if that is the case, why not consider cattle-to-badger or cattle-to-cattle transmission, or even a path of transmission involving other live animals? Such issues must be clarified.
People allege that differerent factors are involved in the transmission mechanism, so the Bourne group will test those in an effort to explain why the incidence may be getting worse. One factor is climatic change: the fact that we no longer have a winter has an impact on whether we can kill M.bovis, which is on the ground. Soil conditions, location and the ecology—including, of course, the ecology of the badger—are also relevant factors. Tuberculosis is a stress-related disease: those who oppose culling come what may argue that increasing stress levels could spread the disease, rather than eradicate it. There may be a question of trace element deficiency in what badgers or cattle eat. Are some animals more susceptible than others?
Animal husbandry and the movement of animals also need to be considered. It has been said that bovine TB might have been imported when so many farms had to restock as a result of BSE. I do not know whether that can be proved. [Interruption.] I see that the former Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), is nodding. I am sure that he will comment on that in due course.
I welcome much of what the Government have done, and I do not want to go over ground that has been covered by other hon. Members, save to say that I am glad that an attempt is now being made to increase data collection and analysis. Everyone seems to welcome the TB99 form and so do I. More support is being given to farmers, which is overdue. It is possible to criticise the two leaflets that have been issued on the grounds that they could contain more information, but at least it has been recognised that information is needed.
I want to discuss animal husbandry in more detail. It is not my way to criticise farmers or to say that their destiny is in their own hands. I do not think that that is entirely true. However, farmers could do more to help themselves if they could be persuaded that the transmission of the disease could be reduced. That is not necessarily a matter of doing anything complicated; it might be achieved by addressing such questions as where troughs are put and whether maize or silage is fed to cattle. The benefits that might be obtained thereby must be explained and demonstrated.
The issue is one of managing risk. Some, at the extremes of opinion, have argued that there should be no dairying in the south-west. That is pretty crass, because dairying is part and parcel of the south-west, but it was mentioned as a possibility in the Select

129WH
Committee report. That suggestion deserves to be ruled out just as much as removing all the badgers from the south-west. Neither option is acceptable or practicable.
The possible link with human beings must be recognised. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that, in Gloucestershire, there has been a couple of cases of young people apparently infected with bovine TB of the same strain that has caused the farm on which they live to break down. Although it is very rare, cases occur and the human dimension must never be underestimated, even though pasteurisation of milk seems to deal with that side of the problem. We still—wrongly—allow into the food chain animals that have gone to slaughter because they have been deemed to be reactors. I know that testing has always tended to prove that the likelihood of spread of bovine TB is very low, but that is one risk too many. I should welcome a response on that point. We need better tests that are able to show the path of the disease more accurately. Perhaps, as well as testing cattle, we should revisit the question of testing live badgers. That was ruled out before because the tests were so inaccurate, but it might help us show how the disease is spreading.
During Agriculture questions, I raised a point about consequential losses. Having talked to farmers in my constituency, I feel strongly that they could ask that several measures be adopted, some of which would be of limited effect, but all of which have a monetary value. They would certainly like MAFF to be a little more flexible with the budget, especially in relation to how and when money is paid. They have incurred costs, which there is no way of recovering, unless they are fortunate enough to have an all-embracing insurance policy. However, it must be increasingly difficult to get insurance because the likelihood of risks being realised is increasing.
There is also the cost of having to feed more animals, which is an animal welfare issue. Just as we may have to take action against badgers, it is also cruel to keep animals penned up: there are strict controls on closed herds and farmers, who might be without an income, must feed those animals. Likewise, there is pressure in terms of the milk quota. Farmers might have to milk more animals, but it is doubtful that they will receive any assistance in that. The very farmers who want to collaborate to farm their way out of the current problems may be those who are most disadvantaged: they might want to move their herds to the next-door farm to share milking costs, but they are faced with the terrible dilemma that, for several months of the year, they might be unable to do so because the herd is closed. As I have already mentioned, sale onwards may also be affected.
The tenor of the debate has been that the Government have been slow to act, more could have been done, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who is partly responsible for the matter, must talk to the people involved and try to gee things up but the answers are not as easy as that. Whisper it quietly—and slowly: causation might be as difficult to ascertain as it has always been. However, that does not mean that we should not work on transmission mechanisms as a means of controlling, if not eradicating, the disease.
The issue is one of money and securing the support of farmers. It is also about trying to get the support of those who oppose culling. I wish that badger groups
130WH
would understand that no one wants to kill badgers—no one goes out, gung-ho, to get badgers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made some light-hearted remarks about confrontation, but there is no point in exacerbating such problems. We must find solutions, even if they have to be for the long term. I hope that badger groups will understand what the Government are doing. The Government have the support of all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and anything that they and we can do should be welcomed.
This is an important debate, although it might have taken place some months ago. We can now begin to deal with an incredibly difficult situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that, if all hon. Members take more than 20 minutes, there will not be sufficient time for everyone to make a contribution, so it is up to hon. Members to limit their speeches.
3.48 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: During Agriculture questions this morning, I heard the Minister describe this exercise as an experiment: it is a trial, not an experiment, as we were forcfully reminded by the advisers during the inquiry. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who so ably opened the debate, is, in a sense, on trial himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is the experiment."] I shall not respond to that. The hon. Gentleman certainly demonstrated his usual wit and flair, coupled with a new-found sense of responsibility. I am told that he behaved himself well in Brussels earlier this week, which is a surprise to many of us.
Mr. Mitchell: It is difficult to do anything else in Brussels.
Mr. Luff: When I told the hon. Gentleman that he had to lead the Select Committee delegation to Brussels, he suggested that he might go armed. The usual cry from the Conservative Back Benches when a Member behaves so responsibly is, "Give him a job." The Government Whip is in his place and I commend that course of action to him. The time has come to give the hon. Member for Great Grimsby a job.
I approach the debate with mixed emotions. Technically, in the eyes of the House, I am still Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, even though, since I joined my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in the usual channels, I have had to relinquish that responsibility.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that that is not a criticism of me, because with another hat on, I am trying to do something about that.
Mr. Luff: I would not dream of criticising the Chair, especially not the current occupant.
I pay tribute to the Agriculture Committee. Its report was very good and I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby paid tribute to the authors of the report

131WH
and to the Committee's advisers. The Select Committee conducted its work in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship and examined issues on the basis of the facts before it. That greatly strengthened its criticisms of the Government and, occasionally, of their predecessors. I, too, pay tribute to Professor Krebs, and to Professor Bourne and his group, who so ably understood the problems and intepreted them. There are real problems, and I am delighted that the Government, at least in their rhetoric, take them so seriously. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the Government, voluntarily, have responded twice to an Agriculture Committee report. I shall not breach the terms of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the current response may or may not be entitled the first progress report, which suggests that there is a determination to produce further responses, which I would welcome.
If the Minister wants to get such reports published, he has the option of publishing the Command Papers, which would be a speedier process than referring them to Select Committee. If he had taken that option, we would have been able to refer to the Government's response to the report—something that I would not dream of doing. I hope that the Minister will allude to one or two of the more important themes in the response when he replies to the debate.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was deeply committed to the Krebs and Bourne processes and who spoke with great honesty and integrity, having changed his mind, I suspect, on the basis of the evidence put before him. That is a tribute to him. Baroness Hayman, who is the Government spokesman on the issue, is similarly committed to the process. I do not criticise the Minister, as the noble Baroness cannot be present. The authorities of the House may like to consider inviting Ministers in the House of Lords to reply to debates in Westminster Hall when they have Government responsibility for those issues.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No.
Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend cries, "No," and, in my new position, I must defer to him, so I withdraw my suggestion.
The issue is urgent. All hon. Members with rural constituencies, whether they are in the south-west or the midlands—I believe that Shropshire is part of the midlands—know of farmers, many of whom are among our personal friends, who are in real difficulties because of the mounting crisis caused by bovine tuberculosis. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) quoted figures drawn from NFU statistics. It is not just a matter of money: dairy or beef farmers in such circumstances find it an emotionally traumatising experience, and the Government understand that. The welfare of farmers and that of badgers and cows must be weighed in the balance.
Previous speakers have referred to the NFU's suggestions and, in the interests of brevity, I shall not repeat them. However, I hope that the Government will seriously consider the NFU's action plan. It is a
132WH
moderate, sensible and practical way forward, which has considerable merit. I am sorry that it has taken so long for the Government to consider it.
The Government say all the right things, but do not go far enough in acting on them. I can refer to one document that tests that hypothesis: the second report of the independent scientific group on tuberculosis. The Select Committee hoped that there would be quarterly reports from that group. The National Federation of Badger Groups, in a helpful briefing document, drew attention to that recommendation and clearly hoped that the group would report more frequently. Far be it from me to be cynical, but I note that that response is dated December 1999; it is no small coincidence that the Government's new response document and the document before us were published this week, which shows the importance of debates on Select Committee reports, in principle, and on this issue. The second report is a helpful document, which justifies making further reports on a regular basis.
In his introduction to the report, in a letter addressed to the Minister dated 17 December 1999, Professor Bourne states:
"The field trial, which has inevitably received much media attention, is only one part of the overall research strategy."
We must remember that although debate on the issue focuses only on the field trial, there is so much more to it. It cannot be said too often that it is part of a coherent strategy; an holistic approach is being adopted, and however effective our debate, it is only one part of the process.
In his short letter, Professor Bourne also states that
"there have been some delays with implementing field work about which we have expressed concerns".
He acknowledges that there have been delays, about which he is concerned. The report re-emphasises in paragraph 1.0.4 that the field trial lies at the heart of our understanding of the process. It cannot be said too often how little we know about the processes involved. I fondly imagined that we knew all that there was to know, and it was a matter of collating, as a desk research exercise, what was known of the experiments in Ireland, for example; but that is not the case. Professor Bourne helpfully reminds us that the trial is essential to a proper understanding of the subject. The whole project, including the controversial field trial, is essential.
Professor Bourne says in paragraph 1.0.10:
"It is disappointing and frustrating that circumstances have limited the number of triplets put in place."
I say amen to that. The original MAFF response states that the Government recognise that in implementing the strategy there has been "some slippage" compared with the original aspirations, which is quite a popular word in political debate at present. It states that the Government fully accept the Committee's emphasis and the need to keep up the pressure to see the programme through. Keeping up the pressure on the Government to see the process through is what the debate is all about.
The non-compliance issues are important and they are highlighted in the most recent document. However, the act of non-compliance that really matters is the risk that farmers may partake of illegal culling, which would destroy the power of a trial. It is not a laboratory experiment; I have heard badger groups argue that,

133WH
because all the badgers in a proactive cull area are not killed, it invalidates the process. It does not: it is a real-world trial designed to encounter all the obstacles that may be faced. However, it would undermine the process if farmers took the law into their own hands. The evidence suggests that that is not happening, but I endorse the comments of other hon. Members who say that we should try to find a way of easing the financial consequences for farmers in the control areas who have to bear the knowledge and the fact of being able to do nothing about the problems on their farms. There is a strong case for improving the power of the experiment by considering that possibility.
One of the most puzzling features of the report from Professor Bourne's group is paragraph 4.34, in which reasons for delay are identified. It states:
"Recognised from the outset as factors which could not be managed, terrain and weather have significantly influenced progress on the ground. In particular, surveying work has often been hampered by unyielding geography and inclement conditions."
I know what rural England looks like, and what the weather is like. I find it surprising that the group has apparently only just woken up to the fact that it occasionally rains in Devon and Cornwall, and in Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Shropshire.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that statement is insulting to dairy farmers, who have to go out twice a day to get the cows in, regardless of the weather?
Mr. Luff: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I was being insulting, but is referring to the report. That is a little uncharitable, but I agree with the spirit of what he says. The matter demonstrates a troubling ignorance of conditions on the ground.
Interference is alarming. A full triplet trial close to my constituency has been delayed as a result of activities by the animal rights lobby. Such interventions go well beyond what people expect and incredible threats have been made. The democratic process is being challenged. The Government have rightly decided to pursue the matter, which has been debated at length. Those who stand up for badgers' rights have had an opportunity to put their case, but the matter has been settled. That is regrettable and extremely worrying. Indeed, it raises important issues that go well beyond this narrow debate. From a local point of view, I selfishly hope that the Government will recommence abandoned operations as soon as possible.
I offer a small apology to the wildlife trusts which, regrettably, were criticised in the report for being noncompliant. I stand by that criticism, which sends farmers an important signal about responsible organisations' capacity for non-compliance. However, some operators of nature and bird reserves also failed to comply. I therefore apologise for singling out the wildlife trusts, but stand by the thrust of the criticisms. Mercifully, noncompliance is not a major issue and the report makes encouraging remarks about compliance levels. Trials that are working appear to be delivering the goods.
I want to emphasise the importance of the road traffic accident survey. Perhaps the most surprising thing of all in Professor Bourne's recent report are his remarks on
134WH
the road traffic accident survey. I have no recollection of the matter being raised during the Select Committee's extensive investigations. Professor Bourne says:
"During lengthy consideration of the possible ways forward, however, it has emerged that a considerable amount of data were already being generated by the informal, ad hoc collection of badger carcasses by a number of the State Veterinary Service's divisional offices. In 1998, some 1200 carcasses were collected and examined—a similar sample size to that envisaged for the seven counties survey."
That is a reference to the counties most at risk of bovine tuberculosis. Professor Bourne continues:
"MAFF agreed with the ISG that this ad hoc work was of limited value and could be put to better use."
That is hugely worrying. The Government have discussed the road traffic accident survey in the response to which we cannot refer. However, will the Minister comment in detail on the matter in his winding-up speech? Bizarrely, many badger carcases which we believed were going to waste were not.
I shall repeat the fundamental criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and several other hon. Members. Lack of resources seems to be the problem. The delay in getting the triplets up and running is a matter of great concern. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said in his opening remarks, we are seeing the fruits of MAFF's tight budgetary settlement. Why else is it thinking of closing down the Worcester regional service centre and other service centres?
I see someone screwing up his face. However, I have seen documents from the trade unions showing that there is a direct and genuine threat to MAFF's regional service centres. That is a matter of deep concern and another example of the financial pressures on MAFF. The issue is so serious that those pressures must not be allowed to get in the way of speedy implementation.
I do not know what the trial will eventually demonstrate. Badgers are a significant part of the problem, but other species are involved. Husbandry issues are also crucial, but I shall not elaborate on those matters again. Cattle-to-cattle transmission is of much greater importance than has generally been acknowledged.
The trial must continue. Farmers must sit on their hands and not interfere with the trials' effectiveness. Badger groups and the animal rights lobby must back off, otherwise more badgers than necessary will die as the trial is extended. If they do not do so, they will cause more suffering to the animals they claim to be helping. It is crucial that they allow the trial to happen and the results to come out so that a proper scientific policy can be developed. The Government must show that increased resources are available to enable the trial to be completed speedily.
4.4 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I will try to be brief. Unlike my contributions to other Agriculture Committee reports, I was relatively light on this one, mainly because the report was excellent and I agreed entirely with its conclusions. What have we learned since? First, I want to bring in a human element by referring to a farmer who works not far away from my constituency whose farm has suffered from TB. He illustrates the problems that farmers face when that happens. He says:

135WH
"I was absolutely devastated when I got the news. They are the words nobody wants to hear. Me and my family were tested … Thankfully we were all clear but I was holding my breath. Less than a week after that first case was discovered a badger roadside fatality was recovered near us which was riddled with TB. I had been told by the Ministry of Agriculture not to wash out the dog's bowl in the kitchen sink and make sure that the dogs are kept out of the way. The families should not get too close to the badgers, but tourists coming into the countryside to walk their dogs or for a day out wouldn't think about the possible risks that badgers and their waste pose. The dog could be sticking its nose and paws everywhere and still be petted the same by its owners. I think we are sitting on a time bomb here and unless something is done to control the badger population I think we are going to have a serious problem on our hands."
I do not share every intuition and thought quoted there, but it is a genuine comment and I have heard the same from other farmers. I am fortunate that bovine tuberculosis has not yet reached my constituency, but it is extremely close. My constituency borders that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr.McLoughlin). He has the burden currently—and it is a major burden—but I regularly hear from farmers on the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border of their worries about the potential effect of TB on their herds. The problem clearly has dramatic effects on the economics of a farm and I shall speak later about what we should do about it.
The problem also has a wider impact on the rural community: it restricts movement, interferes with the normal social relations of the farming community and spreads considerable alarm and concern among people living in the area. That shows the impact on the locality, but it has a major national impact to.
If we allow TB to continue to spread slowly but steadily across our nation, infecting more and more of our cattle, it will place us in the role of international pariahs once again with respect to our livestock produce. We are gradually working our way out of the BSE problem and we do not want other countries to claim that our herds are riddled with TB and to have nothing further to do with our livestock industry as a result. Unless we take steps to control the problem, there is a real risk of that happening.
Animal health is another issue. It is worth saying that TB is an unpleasant disease for badgers as well as for cattle. We have a duty to seek solutions to the problem. As I said, the approach attempted so far is holistic. We have already debated field trials. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that some of the flaws are inherent to field trials. Professor Krebs never intended to transport the laboratory to the countryside and precisely replicate the scientific disciplines that would apply. He was testing two particular approaches to controlling TB and was aware of problems of non-compliance, deliberate obstruction and, occasionally, of farmers extending their responsibilities. He saw those problems as part of the trial; they were recognised from the start. The report has been criticised as flawed on that account. We all recognise that, although it was not a precise process, we could learn a great deal from it. I always felt that we should continue with the trial. I will not go into the criticism that has been made, but it concerns the speed with which we proceeded. Clearly, it has been much slower than we would have hoped.
136WH
What would I do in addition to the trial to extend the holistic approach? First, it would be useful to extend testing in herds beyond the immediate area affected, which is an approach similar to that suggested by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). There is merit in considering the frequency of testing and, when there is a TB outbreak in an area, we should consider the scope for an immediate review of the testing arrangements in that area and around the edge of it to discover the extent of the outbreak at the earliest opportunity. There is much to be said for that.
Secondly, there is merit, if we have the resources—and there is an argument for making available the resources for this—in extending the use of the TB99 form to other parts of the country. Currently, it applies in the test areas and where TB outbreaks occur outside the test areas. However, if we are taking a holistic view and wanting to find out more about the incidence and non-incidence of the disease as well as its relationship to animal husbandry, ecology, the environment and other species, that is a legitimate learning process which could also be applied to livestock herds in non-affected areas. Having seen the TB99 form, I know that completing it is a labour-intensive exercise; indeed, the Committee criticised it for that. Nevertheless, it would be valuable if, over a period, we rolled it out in other livestock areas to identify what other issues we might learn about outside the immediate TB-affected areas. I recognise that that would have a lower priority than some other activities, but we might learn a good deal.
Then there is the issue of how better to compensate and motivate farmers. I will not repeat what has been said, but those who are part of the control element within the trial areas deserve something for their forbearance when their living is being destroyed. The 100 per cent. compensation is a welcome step, but we all recognise that it does not cover a farmer's loss of income. A review of that would be welcome. Bearing in mind the fact that TB99 is also applied to areas outside the trials, we could extend that view to those outside the trials whom the law also prevents from taking pre-emptive action against their badger population. We should be encouraging those farmers to see that we recognise their plight. I would extend such compensation to all farmers who are affected by a TB outbreak on their farm, not just to those in the trial areas. In a sense, they are also part of the trial because they are providing data for it.
On road traffic accidents, there was discussion about the slightly inadequate intelligence that we had at the start of the exercise. However, there is evidence that the Government have not pursued with sufficient rigour the need to analyse the outcome of road traffic accidents among badgers. Resources are clearly required, and I imagine that there are health concerns among those who are given the task of examining the corpses. We need to review carefully how we provide the resources—as rapidly as possible—so we can analyse those outcomes as well as the corpses from the trial areas themselves, where there is currently some difficulty in collecting proper scientific evidence.
The Committee strongly recommended that, although there was evidence that badgers were a prime source of infection, research should be undertaken to try to understand the other possibilities that exist in the animal kingdom. I have seen no evidence of sufficient

137WH
vigour in that respect. I can understand why badger groups think that the finger is being pointed at badgers and that not enough attention has been given to other possible sources of infection—deer, rodents and so on.
Mr. Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman share my slight sense of regret that, by entitling our report "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis", we have perhaps given the misleading impression of having prejudged the outcome of the process?
Mr. Todd: That is a fair point, and the hon. Gentleman may be right.
I love badgers, too. As a child, I used to observe them. Indeed, a badger either lives on my property or visits it regularly, and it is a delight to see, I do not hold any brief for the mass slaughter of badgers, and I hope that the exercise is as short term and focused as possible to achieve an outcome.
It is hard to criticise what has happened with vaccines because this country has a long history of vaccine research, both for badgers and cattle, although it has produced relatively little outcome. I am not persuaded that the Government have as yet produced a programme that is robust enough to reach a solution. We realise that vaccines are promising; they are possibly the only long-term solution, so research must be given the highest priority.
Mr. Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to emphasise, as did the Committee, that the most promising way to find a vaccine is to piggyback on human tuberculosis vaccine research, rather than to rely on freestanding cattle vaccine research?
Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark, which is certainly true. I struck that comment out of my speech because I thought that I might have been speaking for too long already.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Vaccines are often cited as the hallelujah solution to the problem, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as long ago as 1980, the Zuckerman report said that a vaccine would be available in 10 years? Indeed, in 1997, the Krebs report said that a vaccine might take 15 years to develop. A vaccine could be a long way off.
Mr. Todd: I accept that willingly. Indeed, having taken the evidence in the Committee, I am well aware of the longevity of the problem and that the target appears to move further away as time passes.
The Committee was critical of the lack of proper husbandry advice for farmers. Husbandry advice has now appeared, but it has been produced too slowly and additional measures should have been taken. Badger groups have made the point that many common-sense measures could be taken. Farmers could be advised how to keep cattle away from badger latrines and other areas frequented by badgers and how to secure barns so that sick badgers cannot go inside. Those are reasonably obvious points, but they need to be reiterated. The advice documents were simply not available for a long time, which was an omission.
138WH
The Committee was critical of the communication about what the Government were trying to do and, at the micro level, about what was being attempted locally, including establishing trials. Those problems have continued. This is a highly sensitive and difficult issue about which none of us is especially comfortable. We must achieve as much openness as possible, consistent, sadly, with the possible actions of a tiny minority of people. This is not an accusation against badger groups in general. In my contacts with them, people have been responsible and have recognised that there is a problem. However, a tiny minority wish to take action that is dangerous to some of the people conducting the work and clearly that must be considered.
One of the reasons why I suggested using the TB99 more widely relates partly to communication. We must try to get it across to the farming community as a whole that this is a collective matter for farming to solve rather than an isolated issue relating to the south-west and parts of the midlands. We must try to share the process of collecting information and data across all cattle farmers, not just those in that part of the country. We also need to improve communications on a wider scale. One step that could be taken is to establish clearer lines of communication between farming and badger representation groups and scientists about how the exercises are proceeding. That is hard because there is a lack of trust within that exercise, but it should be attempted.
My final point concerns human health. I am aware of the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to. There is a human health dimension. We should not be alarmist about it, but it exists. If we do not take firm action to find a solution, we risk human health implications already that exist on a micro scale. We should be aware of them. I was not entirely convinced how the relationship between the Department of Health and the Ministry was operating to ensure that risk to human health was clearly placed in the forefront of people's minds. I certainly would not want to take part in a debate of this kind in five or 10 years' time in which people were surprised that there was a human health implication. It is not a great surprise. It is possible and we should address it.
4.22 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the problems in approaching any debate about agriculture in the south-west is that one keeps using words like "crisis" and "dire" and saying that people's livelihoods are being destroyed. One runs out of superlatives to describe just how bad it is to a lay audience. Certainly, if it were not for all the other crises in agriculture at present, one would say that this is a crisis of truly enormous proportions. It may say something about the context in which it finds itself that such a major crisis is debated not on the Floor of the House but here in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For all practical purposes we are on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Nicholls: That is why I kept my remarks about that deliberately short.
Moving on to less contentious areas, a great deal could be said to illustrate just how bad the crisis is. I will do no more in view of the shortness of time than to make

139WH
this point. According to figures from the National Farmers Union, 1,670 herds were placed under movement restrictions in 1996. In 1998 the figure had increased to 2,303 herds, which represents an increase of 32 per cent. The figures up to October 1999 show that that level has increased to 2,221.
When I first became the Member of Parliament for Teignbridge, I knew no more about this matter than any other layman. I was generally aware of the debate, but no more than that. When I had my first meeting with the NFU, I was struck, to put it as neutrally as I can, by the intensity of the feeling of people who were convinced that their livelihoods were being destroyed by a perfectly clear causal connection. They were convinced that the connection between badgers and their cattle caused the disease. We have had experience of TB in my family and, even though the link between animal and human may not be particularly direct, anyone with my background would be worried about it.
In common with other hon. Members, I read such evidence as was available at the time. Having read Zuckerman and Dunnet, it seemed that the case had been made. I say that not as a scientist, but as a lawyer. Sometimes laymen say that evidence is only circumstantial: there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, provided that people realise that it is circumstantial. My reading of the science then, as now, is not absolutely 100 per cent. However, I am left with the conviction that there is a centrality in the argument about the badger, which cannot be denied.
It was sad when the hon. Member for South Derbyshire rightly made the point that tuberculosis is a frightful condition for any animal. Some of the letters that I have received from people who view themselves as the badger's best friend were a model of moderation, balance and concern. However, I have received other letters from people who take it as a personal affront to the badger when it is suggested that that animal might have TB like horrible cows. I cannot understand the thought process behind the view that if a disease is caused only by cows and not by badgers, it is all right. It is a dreadful condition for any animal.
At my many meetings with farmers in Devon the subject inevitably arises. There is both despair and anger about it. There is despair at the devastation that the presence of TB can inflict on a whole way of life. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it is not a question of sitting down and waiting for the next test to come through. There is anger, too, among farmers about politicians of all political complexions who have wanted to shy away from the issue. The politicians are reluctant to talk in public about a process that could lead to the death of badgers. The British population, brough up on "Tales of the Riverbank" in an increasingly urban age, do not want to contemplate that. Farmers are therefore desperate about the effect on their livelihoods and about the beliefs of an urban population who simply refuse to face up to what is happening.
I have seen no meaningful evidence of farmers following through their own conclusions and taking matters into their own hands, although there may be isolated incidents. It is remarkable and shows an extraordinary degree of restraint among the farming
140WH
community, which should make us acknowledge that less law-abiding, less decent and less honest people could have gone about things very differently.
It is easy for us in this marvellous Chamber this afternoon to ignore the experience of others. I used to be interested in fisheries. I am still interested, but it would be out of order to expand on it today, apart from saying that scientists did not believe that fishermen knew anything about the migratory habits of fish. Fishermen would tell scientists that the fish had gone elsewhere, which the scientists found hard to cope with. Similarly, scientists often find it difficult to cope with the anecdotal evidence of farmers. When you live on the soil, and you have been bred on the soil for generations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using "you" too much. Although I lived on a farm as a boy, I do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's descriptions.
Mr. Nicholls: I thought that I would be accused of having royal pretensions if I said "one" all the time. However, if one has lived on the land and one has lived there for generations, one comes to realise that one is wholly in tune with nature, does one not? Farmers have experience that may be hard to quantify in scientific terms, but it exists. We owe it to farmers to understand them when they say they believe that the badgers argument has centrality. They are probably right. So what do we do about it?
It is easy to indulge in party-political point scoring, but that is completely against my nature. We could say that the previous Government should have set up the Krebs group sooner, but the key point is that Krebs was set up and that it has reported to the Government. One of the fun things about being a Minister in a Government is that the buck stops with Ministers. Whatever has happened in the past, Krebs has now reported. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, who knows more about such matters than I do, reminded us that the trial areas were originally supposed to be up and running in 1998. It was then said that they would be up and running by the end of 1999, but they are not.
I want to hear from the Minister when the groups will be established, and an unambiguous assurance that the Ministry has the money to do the trials properly, comprehensively and speedily. I do not want to hear that he will do his best with the resources available. The job must be done, and we must hear today when it will be completed.
As many hon. Members have said, those in the control areas are putting their livelihoods on the line—there is unanimity on the issue. The matter is not about having another whinge on behalf of farmers of the west country, but about partnership. It must be recognised that such people are in a unique position and should be compensated.
Farmers have shown great restraint. Badgers are central to the argument; the studies may note other matters. Everyone must realise—both those who regard themselves to be "in loco badger" and farmers who might wish to take further action—that Krebs is the only show in town for dealing with the problem. We owe

141WH
it to animal lovers, and to farmers whose livelihood is being wrecked, to understand that. The sooner that there is a conclusion, the better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should note that three hon. Members wish to speak before I call the Minister. We have a little less than an hour to go, and the Minister will probably need time to respond, so will hon. Members please keep their contributions as short as possible?
4.31 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So far, we have had a reasoned and responsible debate on a subject that is causing huge concern to the countryside, especially areas in which bovine tuberculosis is present.
I hope that the Minister will explain the situation. The Leader of the House announced the debate some time ago. The Government tell us that they take Westminster Hall and Parliament seriously. It was outrageous that they sent a report on the subject to a Select Committee yesterday, which might have been available to members of the Committee but not to other hon. Members. The fifth report was published last April. We have waited for an opportunity to debate it. We secured a debate and were then informed that the Government sent a report to the Select Committee yesterday.
Mr. Mitchell: That is not altogether fair. We have an advance part of a report on progress and the Committee's reports. It was given to the Committee before the main report—restricting it was a service to the Committee and not an insult to the House.
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to spend too long on the matter. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The simple fact is that the House has not had the opportunity enjoyed by the Chamber to discuss the report. To find that the Committee has papers giving an update, which are not available to other hon. Members, is a great pity. It has been said that it could have been issued as a Command Paper, so that we could have had such a debate in the House.
Mr. Luff rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to get too bogged down on the issue. I have made my complaint and I hope that it will be taken seriously.
The fifth report starts by saying:
"Bovine tuberculosis … is a disease with a terrible history in the United Kingdom. In the decade before the Second World War, there were 50,000 new human cases each year and an annual death toll in excess of 2,500 people, largely caused by drinking unpasteurized milk from the national dairy herd where as many as 40 per cent. of the cows"
were infected. That is the history of the disease but, in truth, it is recent history for many farmers in my constituency.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) read a moving letter from a farmer from a neighbouring constituency that summed up the worries. The hon. Gentleman knows well that there have not yet been
142WH
cases of bovine TB in his constituency, but he also knows that there have been cases south of Ashbourne, which is close to the borders of his constituency. The worry shared in such areas is that cases might occur, as they have in mine. The NFU stated in its briefing that, while the disease essentially remained regional and has been confined so far to the south-west, Wales and parts of the west midlands, it is spreading.
I have been especially concerned by the rise of TB in Derbyshire. County-by-county figures of TB cases available on the MAFF website show that, in 1997, an incident of TB had been confirmed in one herd. In 1998, the figure was six. Provisional figures for January to September 1999 show that 16 new herds have been affected by TB. The increase in incidents has been dramatic in an area that has hitherto had none. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) noted that, in the south-west, the problem has existed for a considerable period; it has not in Derbyshire.
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend touched on an alarming matter. I talked this afternoon to John Newell, the senior policy adviser of the NFU in the west midlands, who said that there were 11 new cases of TB in Derbyshire in 1997, 17 in 1998 and 48 in 1999. My hon. Friend cited MAFF figures, which were remarkably lower.
Mr. McLoughlin: I was going to come on to the issue. MAFF has tended to use a different criterion for its analysis from the NFU. I want to use MAFF's figures rather than the NFU's.
During the recent recess, I attended a special evening in Ashbourne about TB incidents, which was addressed by MAFF officials. I was struck by farmers' deep concern. The issue is one aspect of the severe crises facing agriculture, with declining farm incomes and falling prices for products such as milk. The Minister will no doubt say, "Well, it is all very well for Opposition Members to complain, but we do not have the money." The Government can find money when they want to—they can easily find £32 million to launch an inquiry into BSE when they think that it politically advantageous to do so. I find hard to accept that the Government cannot find the money.
Mine is a large rural constituency. When I was first elected to West Derbyshire in 1986, it was rare to see a badger that had been killed in a road accident, but it is more common now. The points made by many hon. Friends about roadside casualties were serious, and should help the Minister. Although I criticise particular aspects of the Government's approach, I accept that the issue is difficult and that there are no easy or straightforward solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke about testing. One of the problems of testing about which farmers have expressed concerns to me is its effect on a herd. Earlier today, I spoke to a farmer called Des Simms, who farms in Ashbourne. He had to have a test on his herd and the result was clear; it showed that there was no problem with his herd. However, he told me that one of the cows tested was in a late stage of pregnancy and aborted after the test. He referred to the discomfort of cattle, to the obvious inconvenience, to restrictions and to other problems.

143WH
We have heard from many hon. Members about various reports that have predicted that a vaccine will be available by the end of the century, by 2005 or by 2020. I fear that we are being given the same sort of response about when implementation will start and about when the Krebs results will be available. First, it was 2003 and now it is 2005, and I fear that the date will for ever move on. There is growing frustration in the countryside. Nobody wants farmers to do things that may damage the end results of the tests, but some of them are living on a very short fuse. I hope that the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the Government are taking the matter as seriously as people in the countryside.
4.41 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr.McLoughlin) said, whatever the facts and prognosis on the problem of TB in our national bovine herd, it is compounded by the other difficulties that our farmers face. TB is a serious problem that is deep and far-reaching. Governments have initiated a number of reports, including the 1980 Zuckerman report and the Dunnet report of 1986. The Krebs inquiry was set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because he felt that we needed an update on the latest scientific thinking. He also felt that we needed to act on the basis of scientific evidence to justify embarking on a larger badger cull. I wholeheartedly support him in that prognosis; we must act on the best scientific evidence available.
One cannot deny that the problem is becoming considerably worse. It is especially bad in the south-west and, unfortunately, in Gloucestershire and in the Cotswolds escarpment, which I have the privilege of representing. Whether or not there is a link between bovine TB and the badger population, there is no doubt that the badger population is increasing at a huge rate. We all know that the badger has no natural predator. I like to see badgers and I have sat in a hide, fed badgers with peanuts, watched them come out at dusk and photographed them. They are wonderful animals to watch. However, if there is a link between TB in the bovine herd and badgers, the Government must take it seriously.
I have received many letters from constituents who sadly afflicted with the problem of TB. Sadly, one in five of all herds in Gloucestershire has had TB reactors or is now affected. Although farmers are grateful to the Government for increasing compensation from 75 to 100 per cent., they are faced with all the other pressures to which I have alluded and they have to carry out more testing. Last Friday, I attended a regular meeting with my branch of the National Farmers Union. I was told that carrying out the tests is a huge financial and physical burden for farmers who are doing all the work on their farm on their own, as other people must be brought in to help with the tests. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the tests are difficult, both physically and economically, for those farmers. I urge him to provide some compensation to cover the extra costs that are involved in carrying out the tests. That would ease
144WH
the day-to-day pain of testing, if not the psychological trauma that is experienced by farmers who are waiting for the next reactor to happen.
Hon. Members commented on the triplet trials that were supposed to be up and running by the end of 1998. Some of those, including the Gloucestershire trial, have been suspended as a result of illegal action. The Minister should urge on all the police services that are involved the utmost seriousness of the disruption of the trials. It is utter folly for them to be disrupted because more badgers end up being culled. I hope that the Minister and, through his colleagues in the Home Office, the police force, will take the matter seriously so that the trials can continue.
As for testing, the Gloucestershire laboratory can see no reason why its safety measures are not sufficient to carry on with laboratory testing of dead badgers. The Minister needs to consult urgently with the Health and Safety Executive to determine why it is not safe to carry out the tests in the laboratory when it is safe for the public to be close to badgers elsewhere. If the laboratory specialists in Gloucestershire are telling me that it is safe to carry out the tests, why does the Health and Safety Executive disagree?
Farmers and their families face great trauma as a result of the TB problem. Officials should take care when they test farmers' animals. I heard of cases on Friday in which officials were not as helpful, sympathetic or practical as they might have been. For example, they carried out tests on one day instead of doing half one day and half the next. The Minister should urge his officials to ensure that the traumatic testing of animals is done with the minimum disruption.
Much has been said about the triplet trials. Important though they are, there is also the issue of research, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) alluded. We should vigorously pursue other areas of research, including molecular models. I am certain that, given the correct resources and the Government's good will, a solution can be found. The Minister will tell us that substantial resources have been put into research, but with a bit more good will and vigour, the solution could be speeded up. There is a perception among the industry that the Government should put more resources into the problem, both in research and the triplet trials. When mink were released on the south coast, MAFF officials who were carrying out badger trials were diverted to retrap the mink. That is nonsense. We should have enough dedicated officials so that the triplet trials continue unhindered by other incidents.
This is a serious problem. I echo hon. Members' concerns about the difficulties of the triplet trials. We need to carry out as much research as possible to speed up the production of a vaccine, which I hope will be forthcoming in fewer than the 15 years that I mentioned in a previous intervention. No one can tell whether that will be the case, but I urge the Government to get the tripartite trial up and running. I also urge them to consider the sensible seven-point proposals produced by the NFU, especially outside trial areas.
Some of my constituents with farms outside the trial areas have been affected up to four times, but even when they suspect that there is a causal link with the badger, the Ministry will not take any action. It seems to me that

145WH
where tests have been carried out on cattle, the NFU's proposals for a wildlife survey should be carried out and a small proportion of badgers trapped, killed and tested to see whether they have TB. If so, further action should be taken, whether that is selective culling or moving badgers away from the area. Some farmers in hotspots have a near certain conviction that their cattle are being reinfected by badgers in their area, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it and they see their livelihood going down the drain. That must be incredibly traumatic and frustrating. Therefore, the Government need to carefully reconsider their 100 per cent. no culling policy outside the triplet areas because further action needs to be taken in obvious hotspots. The Government should put more emphasis on completing the trials as quickly as possible, putting money into research and being sympathetic to farmers whose cattle are tested in what are often traumatic conditions.
4.52 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on initiating the debate, which relates to the subject that affects my constituency and those surrounding it.
I should begin by declaring an interest because I am probably the only Member of the House of Commons who kept a badger as a pet when I was young. A cub was washed up in a brook when I was about 10 and, for a brief period from April to October, I kept her until she decided that she preferred the company of badgers and dug her way out under the garden wall, although she used to come back for Polos.—[Interruption.] They are very fond of Polos—and very down on cats. Just like Mr. Benjamin Bunny Senior, she had no opinion whatever of cats. That experience taught me something about badgers and it is very important to get away from the sentimental idea that anyone who likes badgers should oppose the policy. I cannot understand any badger lover wanting badgers to be infected with TB, a loathsome and disgusting disease, which should be eradicated not only from humans and cattle, but from badgers.
No one in North Shropshire dislikes badgers. There is some exasperation at the huge increase in their numbers, but that has been caused by the protection they were given by the Badgers Act 1973, the Badger Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I know of no farmers who object to those Acts, but the increase in badgers was enormously accelerated by the spread of maize as a high protein fodder for cattle. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of maize being grown in the south-west of England and in my constituency. One peculiarity of the badger is that when the sow is pregnant, if her body weight drops below a certain level she can, uniquely among mammals, suspend the pregnancy. The increase in maize has enabled sow badgers to take large cobs of maize down into their sets so that they have a store of food, which maintains the body weight of the sow at a higher level. As they have that source of rich protein, they are breeding more young—a fact that has been established by several experienced farmers in my area. The two factors together have led to an explosion in badger numbers. A farm near me with 4,000 acres of land has 23 new setts.
146WH
One very experienced dairy farmer, who has been in the trade since his family set up business in the 1930s, estimated that there has been a 400 per cent. increase in badger numbers during the past 10 years. That increase is undisputed, as is the increase in TB in cattle. As Professor Krebs said, we do not know what the link is, but badgers seem to be the most obvious source of infectivity. All the farmers to whom I have spoken regard the badger as the main medium for the spreading of TB, just as the possum is held to be in New Zealand.
I quoted figures from John Newell, the senior policy adviser for the NFU in the west midlands. We have heard about dreadful cases from hon. Members who represent the south-west. There is real alarm in my area as TB is increasing in the north-west midlands and coming over from Derbyshire. I shall not repeat the figures as time is pressing. In Shropshire, there were 11 cases in 1998 and 17 last year. The last census of cattle in my area, which was taken by the Milk Marketing Board 10 years ago, showed that there were 65,000 cows within 10 miles of Market Drayton. I think that I represent the largest milk field in western Europe. The impact of TB is absolutely devastating in my area, as is the sheer uncertainty among farmers about what will happen next year. It is the completely erratic and arbitrary nature of the disease that is alarming people. Many of the farms that have been closed—about 10 per cent. of those in the Market Drayton area have been shut down in the past three to four years—are also closed in the sense that they breed their stock and have pedigree herds. Such farms do not buy in stock from outside, which must suggest that the only source of infection is the dramatic increase in badger numbers.
What is so awful about the disease is the difficulty of analysing it. A farm in my area that is currently closed owned a cow that was inconclusively tested. Sixty days later, the cow was tested again, and the result was again inconclusive. It was then tested yet again, another 60 days later, and the result was yet again inconclusive. The cow had visible lesions and was sent for slaughter. Usually, samples have to be sent off to the MAFF laboratory for analysis for TB, but the lesions were visible to the naked eye. The cow was dramatically infected but appeared to be a doubtful case in three tests. That is why we must push on with the Krebs strategy and continue the process started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Everybody involved in the industry bought into that approach. We do not know the link: there is circumstantial evidence, but everyone is certain that we do not know whether there is a cast-iron link between TB in badgers and TB in cattle.
The Government have not performed. The Krebs report landed on their desk soon after they took power; 30 hotspots were identified and were broken into 10 triplet areas. Today, however, real work has started in only three of the six areas where survey work is going on, which is unacceptable. Given the severity of the disease and the appalling misery that it is causing to farmers, about which we have heard from hon. Members representing the south-west, there is simply no excuse

147WH
for the Government's straightforward incompetence. They should have grabbed Krebs, which had all-party support and support throughout the countryside and the farming community and got on with it.
I remind the Minister that paragraph 7.8.20 of the Krebs report, which is on page 129, states:
"It is important that MAFF does not delay the start of this experiment. We recommend that it is initiated in four months (by Spring 1998)."
Here we are, in spring 2000; only three of the triplet areas are working properly and the spread has increased. We have heard about Derbyshire, and the spread is approaching Shropshire. I urge the Minister to consider increasing the number of triplets. There is now a clear case for the establishment of triplets on the Derbyshire-Staffordshire and Staffordshire-Shropshire borders. While the dither has gone on the relentless march of TB has pushed across the borders.
I am aware of the time so I ask the Minister to respond to the following in quick succession. I am exasperated by my correspondence with the Ministry about the calf scheme for healthy bull calves that are unwanted by dairy farmers. I talked to one farmer today who did not even get the transport costs of sending three calves to Market Drayton. It is even worse for those who are closed up. They have to feed the animals with no prospect of remuneration. The Government must also consider the problem of farmers going over quota on milk production. Cows continue to produce milk whether the farm is closed up or not.
Will the Minister consider his links with the drug industry? We know that the cost of investigation and research into vaccines and drugs in cattle is huge and is linked to human research, but it is critical. Just like Tantalus constantly reaching for his glass of water, it is always in 10 years' time. We must establish a vaccine for TB in cattle and I suspect that that will have to be linked to research into TB in humans which, sadly, is also increasing in other parts of the world.
This matter is crucial. We are sitting on a human health time bomb. We have hysteria in the media about BSE and the possible link—it is not yet proven—with new version CJD. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, the Government have blown £30 million on a report that tries to lay more blame on the previous Conservative Government. Here we have a potentially massive health problem. [Interruption.] If the Minister will just listen, TB is known to have been a killer for many centuries. Gross complacency is being shown here. The Minister has not really grasped the opportunity of Krebs. His heart is not in it. If in the next few minutes he is not prepared to show that he will get resources behind Krebs, he should make way for someone else.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inadvertently forgot to declare my interest as a farmer. It is in the Register of Members' Interests, although I should stress that I own no cattle and therefore have no direct financial link in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Have any other hon. Members anything that they wish to share with us before we continue?
5.2 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Elliot Morley): This has been a very good debate. As I would have expected from the Select Committee on Agriculture it has been very detailed. The contributions from all those who have spoken—with the possible exception of the last speaker—have been excellent. We heard from the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and from the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). There was a sensible theme to the contributions They dealt with the issue very responsibly and asked reasonable and pertinent questions that I shall do my best to answer.
I should also like to take the opportunity to wish the former Chairman of the Select Committee all the best in his new role in Parliament and to say how much I value the work that he has done. I have appeared before the Committee a number of times and I appreciate the quality of the reports and the contribution made by his Committee. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the role, if only temporarily. He presented the report extremely well. It demonstrates his grasp on the issue and his involvement in the Committee.
This is a serious issue. Bovine TB is one of the biggest problems that we face, perhaps the biggest problem after BSE. BSE is basically under control. It is on course for eradication All the safety measures are in place. We understand it well. Obviously, we still need to be careful about some issues. We must not be complacent about any outbreak. Bovine TB is spreading and increasing, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out.
When we came into government we made it clear that we intended to introduce a moratorium on the interim strategy pending the report from Professor Krebs that was set up under the previous Government. I make no bones about the fact that they were quite right to do that. If they had not set up the report, we would have had to do so. It was useful that the report was in train and was in a position to report and deal with some of these issues.
However, I must emphasise to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the interim strategy was a failure: it did not stop the spread of bovine TB; it simply did not work. Most independent observers would concede that and accept that MAFF clung to that strategy too long. The fact remains that there must be a strategy and Krebs is the only show in town. It will allow us to settle issues that have been hotly debated for more than 20 years. The time has come to test the science and decide on the best way to deal with bovine TB. Does culling work? If so, what sort of culling? What is the link with badgers? Other issues also need to be examined.
Mr. Paice: We all accept that the interim strategy was not working at 100 per cent.; otherwise, Krebs would not have been set up in the first place. My point was that by introducing a moratorium before there was anything

149WH
further to do—people had no idea what Krebs would say—the Government might have exacerbated the problem. The interim strategy was not working 100 per cent., but it still may have limited incidence of the disease. That could explain the sudden increase when the moratorium was introduced.
Mr. Morley: There is no evidence of that. The Krebs report will help to answer some of these questions. I repeat that large sums were spent on the interim strategy—money that could have helped to compensate farmers. We increased compensation from 75 to 100 per cent., but the strategy did not deliver. The merits of stopping the interim strategy will be part of the analysis of the trials: the issue is being examied.
My noble Friend the Minister of State has responsibility for these matters: I deal with them in the House of Commons and I am interested in the welfare aspect. I emphasise that there is a major welfare issue for badgers and for cattle in relation to the impact of TB. Testing is also relevant. There are also welfare implications for farmers themselves, who are under considerable stress, as I well understand.
Today I had the opportunity of discussing with farmers from affected areas, the NFU and the National Beef Association their anxieties about badgers. I do not accept the simplistic view about badgers; however, I cannot deny that TB is spreading or disregard the report from Professor Krebs, which shows evidence of a link between badgers and bovine TB. Even though there remains much that we do not understand about how exactly it is transmitted, I simply cannot deny that information, so we must follow the trial through: it promises some answers.
I echo the points made about the interference, which is not helping the cause of badger welfare. For those who do not want a culling programme for badgers, it makes no sense at all to interfere with the trial, which could result in even more badgers being culled. Similarly, it makes no sense for farmers taking the law into their own hands and killing badgers. It would be unwise of them to do so, because if the trial is undermined from that side, we shall go round in circles, as we have done for 20 years, trying to determine the problem and the best way to tackle it.
The National Federation of Badger Groups was mentioned. I have much respect for that organisation, but I was most disappointed to read its press release, which contained many claims that are not true. For example, its claim about the study of TB in other species is inaccurate. Two studies have been commissioned as part of the trial: the Oxford university study, which examined other wildlife species and TB, began in May 1999; the Central Science Laboratory's study, which has begun looking into aspects of the trials, started last month, so both trials are operating. The understanding of transmission routes is an important subject which we need to examine carefully, so a study of that is also under way. The independent scientific group is looking at whole herds in relation to the potential link with cattle. All those issues are being covered in the trial, and it is wrong to state otherwise.
The main criticism, which I wholly accept, is about the delay in setting up those studies. There is no denying it, and MAFF regrets it. However, setting up the trial
150WH
has been enormously difficult. Resources are not the problem: the issue of inadequate resources has never been raised by anyone to whom I have spoken, or in any of MAFF's dealings on the matter. There have certainly been problems recruiting staff and getting access to what, after all, is private landowners' land. We do not have statutory powers, so it must be done by negotiation and persuasion. The weather has caused problems. It is not as though this was not accounted for but, as hon. Members know, the south-west has had exceptionally bad weather this winter, which has delayed this work. There have been serious problems with interference, not only through trapping but because of staff being intimidated. This hardly helps when one is trying to recruit staff for a difficult job.
Mr. Paterson: The Minister blames the weather. Krebs recommended spring 1998 for the trial; it is now spring 2000. If the hon. Gentleman had trouble because of the weather, surely he should have devoted more people to the job.
Mr. Morley: It is not a matter of devoting more people to the job of survey work, although, if the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard me say that we have had problems with recruiting, and we are trying to recruit to bring the staff up to strength. In some instances, the terrain has been difficult. There is a combination of factors.
Mr. Luff: The Minister says that he has a problem recruiting staff. I have been concerned about the very low rates of pay offered to operatives. Has that been a factor in inhibiting recruitment?
Mr. Morley: It is a possibility that we might have to consider, but it is not the only issue. Factors such as weekend working also play a part. I concede that terms and conditions also have a bearing on the problem.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is saying that one reason for the delay in the trials is a problem with recruiting, will he tell me why some of my farmers who have offered constructive help have been turned down? They know the terrain and are used to the rough weather. Why was their offer rejected?
Mr. Morley: I do not know the exact details of that, but proper quality controls are needed in such trials. Although farmers might be offering to help, the issue might be how you manage those trials. I do not know the exact details.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had to pull up other Members for using the word "you." I am not carrying out any such trial.
Mr. Morley: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All the triplets will be in place by the end of this year.
Mr. Nicholls: This year?
Mr. Morley: Yes, this year. Proactive culling will take place in seven of the 10 triplets by the end of this year.

151WH
We are taking action on surveying, which will help to speed implementation and allow us to make further progress.
Mr. Nicholls: I compliment the Minister on the most attractive speech that he was making until a moment ago. I had accepted at face value what he said about resources, but he seems to be saying that he cannot get people to do the work for the rate that he is prepared to pay. If, on the one hand, he is saying that he cannot find people because no one likes the pay or the accommodation but, on the other, he can give an assurance that the triplets will be in place by the end of this year, what has changed?
Mr. Morley: We have recruited staff. The triplets are under way and we are confident that they will be in place by the end of this year. I have said that wages are a problem, but I do not know whether they are a big issue. I would not rule out pay and conditions as an issue. Nevertheless, we are on target to recruit the staff.
The road traffic survey is important and much can be gained from restarting it, but it has been held up because of Health and Safety Executive recommendations, which require new equipment to be installed in laboratories. Again, resources are not an issue. Money has been found for the new equipment, which is being installed. We hope to start the road traffic survey sometime in the spring, although it is fair to say that the backlog of deep-frozen carcases will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept the contradiction that although we can do nothing with the badger carcases, we are still moving cattle that are known to be infected with TB? It is strange that the HSE has taken action only on one side; although I do not want action to be taken on the other, it looks rather ridiculous.
Mr. Morley: The difference is that, if people dissect animals that may have lesions, it is not unreasonable to put proper safeguards in place in the laboratories. That is what the HSE is for, and we must take its recommendations seriously.
We have resolved the Bern convention issue. What we are doing has been found to be entirely within its rules. I was surprised that the Government were criticised by the Bern convention, given that badgers are protected in this country, and especially as they are not protected or hunted in other countries. There is no prospect of the wholesale slaughter of badgers to control TB, and they are not endangered.
I concede that getting the triplets up and running has been a problem. We are on target to get them all done by the end of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby told us—going straight to the point—to get on with it. We are doing so, and intend to ensure that they are up and running.
We are reluctant to take action outside the trial areas because the independent scientific group has advised against it. Some of the National Farmers Union's proposals have not been implemented because the ISG
152WH
thinks that they could compromise the trial. We share farmers' concerns about the increase and spread of the disease, and we cannot ignore such matters. We are discussing the position outside the trial areas with the TB forum and we will consider carefully what it has to say.
Vaccine development is another issue. I was asked how much the Government were spending. This year we are spending £1.4 million. Once again, however, it is not an issue of resources. The problem with vaccine development is the process of looking for the vaccine, which is very slow. Spending more money will not speed the process up. I can assure hon. Members that the independent scientific group is also examining work on human vaccines to see what can be learned about any potential link.
As was recognised by members of the Select Committee, the issue is not just about badgers, but about vaccine development, bio-security on farms, researching trace elements, better testing procedures, social ecology and animal behaviour. All those issues—and indeed cattle-to-cattle transmission—are being examined as part of the evaluation of the independent scientific group. I have met Professor Bourne and Professor Krebs and I was impressed with the thoroughness of their work.
Mr. Todd: The scientific group was asked to examine the possibility of using the TB99 questionnaire outside the trial and infected areas. It recommended doing that as soon as practicable. Does the Minister agree?
Mr. Morley: We should reflect carefully on that issue. TB99 is a new questionnaire and even within infected areas it is a detailed and large-scale operation. Farmers have welcomed it and we are hopeful that information on TB99 will be helpful for the scientific study. We could contemplate extending it some time in the future.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister denies that it is a question of resources, but paragraph 58 of the Select Committee's report quotes Dr. Hewinson as saying that in the United States &800 million is being spent on trying to produce a human vaccine that would also be useful for cattle. The Minister mentioned £1.4 million, which seems a huge imbalance in relation to United States spending on the problem.
Mr. Morley: We may benefit from some of the research that is financed in America. Nevertheless, I am informed that it is a question not of resources, but of the process, the time and the way in which vaccines are developed.
We acknowledge the costs faced by farmers involved in cattle breakdowns. We recognise the burden on farmers in that respect. As I said, we increased compensation from 75 to 100 per cent. for cattle. There is presently no prospect of extra compensation: it is not within our budget. However, we are consulting the TB forum about what more can be done and we shall continue those discussions.
On rules about movement restrictions—
Mr. McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us whether the Department is requesting additional compensation for farmers in the current spending review?
Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman said, the spending review is going on now: it is not yet completed.

153WH
[Interruption.] No, implications cannot be drawn from that either way. Annual tests are not likely to be applied nationally.
The Committee will know that an animal husbandry panel has been set up and has been given three months to produce its report. It commenced in January.
Mr. Paice: On annual testing, I did not suggest a national basis. My proposal was to consider it for the frontier counties in order to identify quickly where the spread was taking place. It could then be curtailed more swiftly than otherwise.
Mr. Morley: We would not close the door on any suggestion. Perhaps the TB panel could consider that.
I emphasise that the human risk is minimal. In fact, bovine TB used to be far more prevalent in this country than it is now. There is no evidence of an increase in outbreaks of the human TB that is linked with this strain, although there were two recent cases of infection linked with cattle. The pasteurisation of milk protects the consumer. There are also procedures in slaughterhouses to inspect carcases and identify animals showing signs of TB infection so that the appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that there is no risk in the food chain. Those procedures have been in place for a long time and there is no evidence of any risk to the population. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency; we are careful to ensure that these matters are monitored and we are in touch with the Department of Health in that regard.
I shall bear in mind the point about issuing reports through Command Papers. However, I think that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire misunderstood what was going on with the Government's response to the Select Committee. The usual Government response was made in June, but we have taken a new approach, in that as well as that response, we have also drawn up a report on the progress that has been made. That is a positive step forward. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome being updated on what we are doing in terms of this important matter.
Mr. McLoughlin: All I was saying was that, bearing in mind that we knew of this debate about two weeks ago, if the Committee had had that report a little earlier, no doubt it could have been published so it would have been available to everyone. We are talking about freedom of information; some of us know that a report
154WH
is being submitted to the Sub-Committee which may contain information that the rest of the House has not had the opportunity to digest.
Mr. Morley: The point that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands is that the publication of the report was not linked to the timing of this debate. This debate could have taken place earlier or later. It was just a matter of making the information available.
Mr. Luff: I congratulate the Minister on keeping a straight face during that last remark.
Mr. Morley: I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman, but that was unfair. I would point out to hon. Members that, for example, the independent scientific group's report was received in typescript just before Christmas. We managed to get it printed and out by January, which is not a bad achievement. There is no evidence of delaying reports to ensure that people do not get them.
I understand that the collection of badgers continued under the interim strategy where farmers requested it until the Bourne advice was received in August 1998. Plans to stop it and launch the Bourne seven counties road traffic assessments were in place when the post mortem facilities at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency were suspended in the August. Information from that has been made available to the independent scientific group.
In terms of what we have been doing to implement the triplets, the independent scientific group in its report considered the programme sufficiently robust and felt that we were making progress.
I have to say that the hon. Member for North Shropshire rather exaggerated; he should not use words such as an "explosion" of badger population. I have heard that expression from time to time, but it is not the case. Our figures suggest that badger numbers may be up in some areas of the country, but there is no evidence of an increase at a huge rate. Moreover, where there is an increase, a population will stabilise at the carrying capacity of the habitat concerned. Indeed, in the proactive culls that have taken place so far, there seems to be evidence that badger populations were not as high as envisaged.
I must bring my remarks to a close. It has been a good debate which has raised some important issues. The Government take them seriously and I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that we are making progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.