HC Deb 31 March 2004 vol 419 cc1463-70W
Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how wildlife surveyors distinguish between primary and secondary badger setts; and what effect a preponderance of unrecognised secondary setts has on the estimation of badger populations;[158374]

(2) how wildlife surveyors distinguish between primary and secondary badger setts; and what effect a preponderance of unrecognised secondary setts has on the estimation of badger populations. [158498]

Mr. Bradshaw

Ecologists have tried to classify setts according to size and function. The normal convention in ecological badger surveys is to recognise four categories of setts: main, subsidiary, annex and outlier, although there are other methods of surveying. Defra Wildlife Unit staff distinguish maid setts on the basis of a number of factors including the number of holes, activity, latrine location, topography and relationship to other larger setts; secondary or other' setts are those not fitting the description of main setts.

Population estimates may be based on the number of main setts, with an estimated average number of badgers for a social group being applied per main sett. This approach relies upon accurate identification of main setts, and would not be affected by any other type of sett being missed; however if a main sett were misclassified e.g. as a subsidiary sett, it would affect the population estimate.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions her Department has reached on whether the proportion of diseased badgers in road traffic accidents is representative of the incidence of the disease in the badger population as a whole. [158806]

Mr. Bradshaw

The road traffic accident (RTA) survey has been designed to establish whether the incidence of bovine TB in badgers collected from road verges and other locations is representative of the prevalence of the disease in the badger population in that area. A first analysis, using the information from carcases collected so far, is expected to be completed in April.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the proposed levy to fund compensation payments in respect of slaughtered TB reactors will be imposed on(a) a per head and (b) a per farm basis; and whether it will apply to (i) dairy producers and (ii) beef producers; [158368]

(2) whether the proposed levy to fund compensation payments in respect of slaughtered TB reactors will be imposed on a (a) per head and (b) per farm basis; and whether it will apply to (i) dairy producers and (ii) beef producers. [158571]

Mr. Bradshaw

The levy which we have in mind would be raised on a per head basis, on all the animals susceptible to any disease covered by the levy fund. Different rates of levy would be set for different categories of animals, in line with the categories which are set for the compensation regime.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what responsibility her Department has for mitigating losses incurred by farmers arising from disease reservoirs over which they have no control; [158413]

(2) whether it is her policy to compensate farmers for all losses incurred due to diseases whose main reservoir is in wildlife. [158757]

Mr. Bradshaw

The Government will pay compensation to farmers and other keepers, when livestock is slaughtered for the purpose of disease control under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981. No compensation is payable for consequential losses. Farmers, like other businesses, need to take into account any risks to their business, including the risk of disease posed by wildlife.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the predicted doubling of the incidence of TB in cattle qualifies technically for the description epidemic. [158801]

Mr. Bradshaw

Yes. The occurrence of TB is at a level in excess of what might be expected, given the previous low incidence established during the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are plans to train lay personnel to carry out live TB testing in cattle. [158803]

Mr. Bradshaw

Last year the Government consulted on a proposal to permit fully trained and competent lay personnel to carry out TB testing of cattle. We are currently considering the way forward following the analysis of the responses to the consultation.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether budget allocation has been made for the purpose of gaining public acceptance of large-scale badger culling. [158804]

Mr. Bradshaw

No.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her objective that bovine TB should be eradicated using current control methods. [158807]

Mr. Bradshaw

The Government recognise that eradication of bovine TB is unlikely to be achieved in the next 10 years using current control methods. The public consultation on a revised TB strategy for Great Britain is looking at what might be achieved in this time scale. A desirable outcome would be to achieve Officially Tuberculosis Free status, as defined in EU Directive 64/ 432/EEC. Our priority in the shorter term must be to prevent the spread of the disease from areas of GB where incidence is high to areas where it is low.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the clean ring strategy adopted from 1982 to 1985 led to a reduction in the incidence of TB in(a) badgers and (b) cattle; and what the incidence of bovine TB was outside the clean ring target areas during that period. [158808]

Mr. Bradshaw

The information requested is as follows:

  1. (a) Badgers recolonising areas cleared under the clean ring strategy had similar levels of TB infection to the badgers removed; there was a reduction in the rate of cattle TB breakdowns. The Krebs Report considered this and said 'whilst removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors'.
  2. (b) There is no known specific assessment of the incidence of bovine TB outside the clean ring target areas during the period 1982 to 1985. The table illustrates the level across Great Britain.
Incidence of tuberculosis as disclosed by tuberculin tests 1982 to 1985 in Great Britain
Reactors slaughtered Herds with reactors
Herds tested Number As a percentage of cattle in herds tested Number As a percentage of herds tested
1982 48,343 569 0.016 308 0.637
1983 44,830 621 0.019 322 0.718
1984 45,285 660 0.019 350 0.773
1985 43,826 699 0.021 341 0.778

Source: Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer 1984 and 1985.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her best estimate is of the total costs of bovine TB for each of the years from 2004–05 to 2012–13, based on the assumptions used for the graph on page 23 of her consultation document, "Preparing for a new GB strategy on Bovine Tuberculosis", but in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir. [158810]

Mr. Bradshaw

It is not possible to estimate this figure. To do so would require knowledge of the quantitative contribution of wildlife to the causation of TB in cattle, a fact not currently known.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the current objective of badger TB vaccine research is to(a) achieve a high level of immunity in the badger population and (b) reduce bacterial shedding by badgers which have succumbed to the disease. [158811]

Mr. Bradshaw

A vaccine targeted at badgers would not be required to protect individual badgers against TB, but would need to reduce the transmission to cattle. Thus a vaccine that reduces the severity of the disease and/or reduces shedding of the bacteria from infected badgers by inducing protective immunity could have the desired effect. This is the current objective of badger TB vaccine research.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department will bear the market authorisation costs for a new animal TB vaccine; and whether she will be seeking a commercial partner to bring the vaccine into use. [158812]

Mr. Bradshaw

There are no plans to develop a generic animal vaccine at present. However Defra is funding research into the development of specific badger and cattle vaccines and associated diagnostic tests.

In particular. Defra is organising a workshop aimed at progressing badger vaccine development from the current research to delivery of a licensed product (BCG based vaccine) to badgers in the field. This will ensure Industry is engaged early enough for manufacturing, licensing and marketing issues to be understood and taken on board. The workshop should clarify timescales, costs and the roles for various partners, and possible models for engagement between Government, Industry and beneficiaries in the development of a badger vaccine.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 522W, on badgers, whether the gassing of badgers is deemed by her Department to be inhumane when preceded by the administration of an efficient anaesthetic gas. [158813]

Mr. Bradshaw

The gassing of badgers in their setts is not regarded as an acceptable method of killing them because of the difficulty of ensuring the correct concentration of gas throughout the sett, using the methods of delivery and gas combinations that are currently available; this applies whether the gas is intended to bring about anaesthesia or death.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits of unrestricted, natural growth in the badger population. [158814]

Mr. Bradshaw

The Department has not made any such assessment.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1365W, on badgers, what lessons have been learned from the four badger clearance areas to which she refers. [158815]

Mr. Bradshaw

The Krebs Report considered this and saida reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle in areas after badger clearances would be compelling evidence that the badgers had been responsible for TB in the cattle if alternative explanations could be eliminated". The Government accepted the Report's recommendation that a field trial be established to investigate this issue further, and set up the Randomised Badger Culling Trial in 1998.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many applications for section 10 licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 permitting the killing of badgers for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property have been(a) made and (b) approved in respect of listed buildings or other listed sites in each year that the Act has been in force; [159116]

(2) how many applications for section 10 licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 permitting the killing of badgers have been (a) made by (i) farmers and (ii) other private landowners and (b) issued for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in each year that the Act has been in force[159117]

Mr. Bradshaw

When members of the public approach my Department with a badger problem, most come seeking our advice on how they can resolve their problem. Only a small number have a clear idea of what action they want to take. Because of this it is not possible to distinguish between applications on the basis of whether the applicant wanted to kill the badgers, relocate them or simply close a problem sett. Thus, we cannot provide figures for part(a)of these questions.

With regard to the number of licences issued to kill badgers for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in respect of listed buildings or other listed sites; our computerised system does not specifically record whether a building or other site is listed. Therefore we are unable to provide figures for this. We are however unaware or any such licences issued between 2001 and 2003.

The number of licences issued permitting the killing of badgers for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in each year that the Act has been in force and for which there are computer records available, are as follows:

  • 2001: 0
  • 2002: 1
  • 2003: 0

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which clauses of the Berne Convention relate to the mass culling of badgers for the purpose of disease control. [159127]

Mr. Bradshaw

No Article of the Bern Convention does so in such precise terms. Article 9, however, provides for 'exceptions', including for the purposes of being in the interest of public health and safety, the prevention of serious damage to livestock and research.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 6 February 2004,Official Report, column 1109W, what the period is between the administration of each test to which badgers are subject before release; and what the statistical probability is of detecting an infected badger by the application of three tests.[159143]

Mr. Bradshaw

The minimum interval between indirect (Brock) ELISA tests should be 4 weeks.

An animal which has had three negative test results has a 2.7 per cent. risk of being infected if it comes from a population with a background prevalence of infection of 10 per cent.—We cannot be definitive when the background prevalence is subject to fluctuation.

Progress is being made in improving assays to detect antibodies against M. bovis infection in badgers.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 218W, and 29 January 2004, Official Report, column 482W, on bovine TB, in how many cases when traps were damaged it was judged that the traps had been recently occupied by badgers. [159145]

Mr. Bradshaw

No judgment was made or records kept as to whether traps damaged by anti-trial protesters contained trapped badgers at the time they were damaged.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 218W and 29 January, Official Report, column 482W, on badgers, in how many instances her departmental officials reported the loss or damage of badger traps to the police; and what investigations were made as a result. [159155]

Mr. Bradshaw

Badger culling operations are planned in close liaison with the respective police authorities. Varying reporting arrangements for trap damage are agreed with the different police forces who investigate and record such crime according to their assessment of the local situation.

Defra does not receive information on the outcome of police investigations.

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 215W, on badgers, what aspects affecting the routes of transmission of M. bovis (a) from cattle to cattle, and (b) between badgers and cattle, remain to be fully understood. [159214]

Mr. Bradshaw

In relation to cattle to cattle transmission the rate at which cattle excreteM. bovis varies, and the effect of age, breed, productive and health status of the animal and time since infection are not fully understood. If transmission is by the respiratory route the relative importance of proximity, ventilation and dust remains to be determined. It may be that cow to calf transmission by milk ingestion is possible: if so, how often this occurs is not known.

It has not yet been established whether cattle to badger transmission occurs and, if it does, how often in comparison with re-activation of latent infection in badger populations.

In relation to badger to cattle transmission variation in the rate at which badgers excrete M. bovis, and the effect of age, breed and health status of the animal and time since infection is not understood. Additionally the relative importance of contamination of pasture, feed stores and silos, feed troughs, water troughs and streams and how and why the risk is discontinuous in space and time, so that some farms can escape disease for many years while neighbours are apparently infected several times a year is yet to be established.

Defra has a number of research projects in place to investigate more fully the factors associated with M. bovis transmission between animals.

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 215W, on badgers, whether her objective of containing the geographical spread of TB in cattle also encompassed a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle in those geographical areas where it has already been detected.[159215]

Mr. Bradshaw

The objective of surveillance and control activity is to reduce the incidence of TB wherever it is found.

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 213W, on badgers, whether the number of field officers employed are sufficient to maintain trapping frequency in proactive areas, in accordance with the protocols set out for the Krebs trials. [159216]

Mr. Bradshaw

yes.

Mr. Paterson

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 821W, what assessment she has made of whether badger culling programme designs and execution need to be improved in order to reduce perturbation. [159281]

Mr. Bradshaw

The amount of perturbation is a factor of the degree of culling, and the number of badgers surviving it. The more or, conversely, the less effective a badger culling programme is, the less the perturbation effect may be. To make the sort of assessment the hon. Member suggests would require a study designed to quantify accurately the effects on the levels of perturbation that different culling programmes would have. Given the number of replicates that would be required, at varying levels of culling efficiency and badger density, this would be difficult to achieve.