Badgers

HC Deb 28 January 2004 vol 417 cc378-82W

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will also take into account(a) the impact of allowing unrestrained growth of the badger population and (b) the impact of controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels. [150473]

Mr. Bradshaw

Even where culling does not take place the local badger population is not undergoing `unrestrained growth' as it will be subject to limits imposed by natural and human phenomena. The project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will assess the impact on other wildlife of controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels, in comparison with areas where badgers are not culled.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she reconciled the inability to estimate the effect of alternative capture methods of badgers which would remove 100 per cent. of the population with the findings during the Thornbury trial. [150490]

Mr. Bradshaw

The Krebs Report referred to the difficulty of assessing the effect of different control strategies on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns. The report saysNone of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy." (Krebs Report pages 82–83).

A comparison of reactive culling areas of the Randomised Badger Culling trial (RBCT) and the Thornbury clearance area is not valid. Although indicative of the effect on cattle TB incidence that might be expected if a total badger clearance were achieved, the Thornbury badger removal was performed without contemporary control areas. This limits its usefulness as a basis for comparison with the impact of lesser percentage badger clearances achieved by other methods, since any change in he incidence of TB in cattle subsequent to culling could have resulted in whole or in part from some other cause.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 211W, what conclusions she draws from the data on the location of TB lesions in badgers as to the main route of infection; and whether it is possible to draw similar conclusions in respect of the data available on the location of TB lesions in cattle. [150491]

Mr. Bradshaw

Infection withMycobacterium bovis most often causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes, which suggests that the most common route of infection in badgers and cattle is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. In badgers infection by inoculation through bite wounds are also a relatively frequent route of infection.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific rationale was for the choice of the different distance parameters adopted for the culling zones of badgers in(a) the Gassing Strategy and (b) the Clean Ring Strategy, of the Krebs trials. [150509]

Mr. Bradshaw

For the gassing strategy: where TB infection was found in badgers, an area of up to one kilometre from the farm boundary was surveyed, to include the full territories of badgers on the infected farm. Social groupings were identified and all infected social groups, and groups in contact with them, were gassed. The area gassed was determined by the location of infected farms, infected badgers, sett groupings and natural boundaries. (Krebs Report 1997, page 142)

For the Clean Ring strategy: infected social groups, and those contiguous with them were culled. Culling, of social groups that were contiguous to groups found to be infected, continued until a clean ring of social groups containing no infected animals was found and removed, or else there were no badgers found. (Krebs Report page 143)

The use of broadly circular treatment areas of 100 km² for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is explained on pages 8–9 of the first report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and is based on the suggested use of 10km by 10km squares in the Krebs Report, pages 90–93.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what distances can be travelled by adult badgers from their setts to their food sources; and what the radii were of the Krebs(a) reactive and (b) proactive areas. [150512]

Mr. Bradshaw

Adult badgers can travel between a few metres and a few kilometres from their setts to their food sources dependent on the quality of the habitat. None of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are completely circular, so no exact radii can be evaluated. Trial areas are initially described using a 5.64 km radius circle but this shape is distorted by natural features and survey data to end up with areas of around 100 sq km. However, details of the total surface areas of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are available on the Defra Internet site.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 211W, on badgers, what proportion of badgers culled as part of TB control strategies conducted during 1979–97 tested positive for M. bovis; and what the percentage was in (a) 1975–82, (b) 1982–88 and (c) 1988–97. [150547]

Mr Bradshaw

The following table gives these data:

Period	1979–97	1975–82	1982–88	1988–97
Badgers culled	20,252	2,661	6,367	13,401
Badgers positive for M. bovis	3,985	283	966	3,118
Percentage	20.1	10.7	15.2	24.0

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 212W, what inferences can be drawn from the preponderance of TB lesions found in badgers on post mortem examination arising in the lymphatic nodes of head and chest as to (a) the portal of infection, (b) the possible routes of infection and (c) the risk presented by those badgers to other animals. [150564]

Mr. Bradshaw

Infection withMycobacterium bovis frequently causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes of badgers, which suggests that a common route of infection is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. Where there is infection of the respiratory tract, it is probable that there are phases of M. bovis excretion of infected saliva via the respiratory tract, which may contaminate pasture or animal feed containers.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether material contaminated with theM. bovis bacilli deposited on grassland by badgers and subsequently entrained in hay used for the feeding of cattle is considered to present a significant risk of infection to (a) cattle, (b) farmers and (c) other persons who may handle this material. [150570]

Mr. Bradshaw

As the organismMycobacterium bovis prefers damp mild conditions it is unlikely to survive the hay making process. We consider that there is no significant risk of infection to cattle, farmers or other persons who may handle hay.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many Krebs reactive areas badger culling was commenced in May 2003; how many farms were involved in these areas; how many of those farms had had(a) one and (b) two 60-day tests after the clearance operations; and what the results were of those tests. [150579]

Mr. Bradshaw

The first reactive operation in Triplet I commenced in May 2003. Reactive operations in Triplets A, B and C had commenced prior to May 2003 and further operations occurred during May 2003 in these Triplets.

The number of infected cattle herds triggering reactive culling operations in May 2003 in Triplets I, A, B and C totalled 20. The number and testing details of premises over which these operations took place cannot be provided at proportionate cost.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what methods other than gassing are available for the culling of badgers; and what statutory restrictions apply to those alternatives. [150585]

Mr. Bradshaw

Gassing is not a legal method of killing badgers.

The badger is a fully protected species. It is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger by any method (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)).

Badgers are also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a specific offence to poison badgers (including by gassing) (s.11(2)(a)).

A person guilty of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

Where killing is carried out under a licence issued by Defra, the technique employed will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case, but will normally involve cage trapping and humane dispatch by shooting.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there were in the protocol for badger trapping in the period 1975 to 1997; and what effect they had on the success rate of trapping operations. [150590]

Mr. Bradshaw

The key operational features of badger control strategies from 1975 to 1996 are set out in Appendix 3 to the Krebs Report. We have no validated data on the success rate of the various culling strategies.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 212W, on badgers, what her best estimate is of the typical kill rates of badgers during the Krebs culling programmes; what the worst rates were; and what the impact was of low kill rates on the (a) conduct and (b) outcome of the trials. [150592]

Mr. Bradshaw

There is no precise way of measuring badger populations pre- and post-culling operations and estimates are made in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial based on field signs at a sample number of setts. Culling success is affected by a range of factors including levels of access, anti-trial activity and the time of the year, and where proactive culling in a triplet has been carried out at a sub-optimal time the next cull, where possible, is planned for more optimal periods.