Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Fourth Report


2  BACKGROUND

Cattle TB in Great Britain

14. Since the late 1980s there had been a steady rise in numbers of cattle TB breakdowns in herds in Great Britain and an increase in the number of reactor cattle culled following a positive result to the TB test: but now the numbers of breakdowns are doubling every four and a half years.[11] Most breakdowns are clustered in "hot spot" areas in South West England, South West Wales, Staffordshire and Derbyshire. It is expected that at the current growth rate the disease will spread to other areas of England and Wales. It is unclear how far the increase in the number of new breakdowns is a genuine increase in the spread of the disease or instead the effect of the introduction of a stricter testing regime which has found a higher proportion of cases.

15. The past year has seen the Government's attention focused on outbreaks of several serious animal diseases: Avian Influenza; Foot and Mouth disease and Bluetongue. However, cattle TB has proved to be the most serious, persistent and expensive livestock disease in recent years. Professor Sir David King told the Committee that "Britain's biggest endemic animal health issue is TB in cattle".[12]

16. Animal health is a devolved issue, but the Government's Strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain, published in 2005, was produced in association with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive. The framework provides for the development of national approaches in recognition of the differences in disease incidence within Great Britain. Cattle TB is not currently a significant problem in Scotland and therefore the Scottish Executive's emphasis is on prevention rather than cure. Cattle TB is a significant problem in the island of Ireland, where there are extremely few disease-free areas. Further information on how Cattle TB is being tackled there can be found in the Annex to this Report.

17. In Wales, where cattle TB is a serious concern, the Wales Action Plan takes forward the aspects of the GB Animal Health and Welfare Strategy over which Wales has direct control, setting out what is being done and reporting on progress.[13] In 2006, Wales implemented a Biosecurity Intensive Treatment Area (ITA) in South West Wales within which biosecurity interventions are actively promoted to improve herd health by reducing the spread of the disease. The gamma interferon test, [14] used alongside the tuberculin skin test in certain circumstances, is being rolled out across Wales as part of the national surveillance regime. The Welsh Rural Affairs Minister will receive advice from the Wales TB Action Group on the measures that it considers are appropriate in relation to wildlife. On the issue of culling badgers, the Welsh Rural Affairs Minister has been quoted as saying that Wales "will not follow London's agenda if it is not right for Wales".[15]

18. On 22 January 2008, the Rural Development Sub-Committee of the National Assembly for Wales published a report on its inquiry to investigate "how the Welsh Assembly Government could contribute to the containment of M. bovis through its existing powers; and review the long-term management and reduction of M. bovis through animal health and welfare best practice and control processes, acknowledging available scientific evidence."[16] The Committee concluded that it was necessary for the Welsh Assembly Government to adopt "an holistic approach" in order to control and eventually eradicate the disease in both the wildlife and cattle population.[17] The Committee recommended the adoption of a combination of measures, including increased on-farm biosecurity, the speedy and accurate identification and management of reactors and at-risk cattle herds and the understanding and control of TB in the wildlife population. To achieve the last measure, it recommended that an Intensive Treatment Area be created to provide further evidence on the effects on the spread of TB of culling wildlife in an area with hard boundaries.[18]

19. Despite the publication of Defra's strategic framework for the sustainable control of cattle TB, there is a lack of evidence to indicate that the written strategy is achieving the overall strategic aim of controlling the disease. Lord Rooker told the Committee: "We have a serious disease in a food production animal […] It is growing and everything we seem to do is not constraining it at the present time."[19]

20. The Government's current method of controlling the disease involves surveillance, testing, compulsory slaughter and compensation. Due to the slow progression of infection, cattle rarely show the obvious clinical signs of cattle TB, such as weakness, coughing and loss of weight. It is normally detected by tests or at the slaughter house. Defra have implemented a national programme of herd testing for M. bovis where animals in most herds are subjected to a diagnostic test (using the skin test) at prescribed intervals. The frequency of testing depends on recent incidence at a parish level of herds with confirmed TB, ranging from annually to four yearly testing.[20] Routine TB surveillance tests are paid for by the Government. The intra-dermal tuberculin (skin) tests are the primary screening tests, whilst the gamma interferon blood test is currently only approved as an adjunct to the skin test to help confirm correct diagnosis of the disease. Defra estimates that the tuberculin test detects approximately 80% of all the infected cattle in a herd at any one test.[21] The ISG reported that several studies of naturally and experimentally infected cattle have highlighted the limitations of the tuberculin skin test and its consistent inability to identify a significant number of TB infected cattle.[22]

21. Research has found that the gamma interferon test has better sensitivity than the skin test (i.e. the ability correctly to identify infected cattle), but that the tuberculin skin test provides a higher level of specificity (the ability to correctly identify non-infected cattle as negative, and thereby avoiding "false positives"). The specificity of the gamma interferon test is not sufficiently high enough for it to be used as the primary diagnostic for routine herd testing,[23] but research has shown that in combined use with the skin test it can produce higher levels of sensitivity than the skin test alone.

22. Reactor cattle which test positively are separated from the herd and sent for slaughter. Animals whose test result was inconclusive are separated from the rest of the herd (sometimes the whole herd is placed under movement restrictions). Then, if a follow-up test shows a positive reaction the animal is sent for slaughter, but if the animals have two consecutive clear tests they can rejoin the herd.

23. If TB is found in a herd restrictions are imposed on movements onto and off the premises until all animals in the herd have been tested and been found clear on two consecutive occasions, or after one subsequent test in the case of animals tested where infection was not confirmed. Enquiries are carried out to establish the origin of the disease, and animals previously moved off the farm are traced and tested, as are animals on neighbouring farms.[24]

24. A computerised National Cattle Tracing System identifies animals and herds that need testing. According to Lord Rooker, the system is overburdened by the scale of the operation and the resources available: "The computer system is out of date. It has black and white screens. I have not seen those for years. There is a massive paperwork trail both for the testing and also the checking and tracing. Administratively, it is a nightmare."[25] This can be contrasted with the more up to date APHIS cattle tracing system operating in Northern Ireland.[26]

25. In March 2006, Defra implemented a new system of statutory pre-movement testing of cattle in England with the intention of helping to reduce the risk of spreading cattle TB between herds in high-risk areas and to herds in areas free from the disease. Under this system, all cattle over 42 days old moving out of a one- or two-yearly tested herd must have tested negative to a TB test within 60 days prior to movement unless the herd or movement meets an exemption. All pre-movement tests must be arranged and paid for by the herd owner (but routine cattle TB surveillance tests paid for by the Government can qualify as pre-movement tests, if animals are moved within 60 days after that test).[27] Scotland has gone a step further and introduced post-movement testing in an attempt to prevent the spread of the disease north of the border.[28]

26. There are approximately 8.6 million cattle in Great Britain, 5.6 million of which are in England.[29] In 2006 approximately 5.5 million tests were carried out in Great Britain. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) has forecasted that this number could rise to nine million by 2010, with the number of reactor animals slaughtered rising to 66,000.[30] Defra has estimated that testing will prevent approximately 610 new incidents of cattle TB a year (the total in 2006 was about 3,500 across Great Britain as a whole).[31] Vets and farmers in Devon told the Committee that the testing regime was already time consuming, demoralising and a seemingly never-ending cycle of paperwork.

TB IN THE WILDLIFE RESERVOIR

27. Previous studies have concluded that badgers are a wildlife "reservoir" for cattle TB and that there is compelling evidence that badgers are involved in transmitting infection to cattle.[32] Deer are also known carry the disease. Results of the Road Traffic Accident Survey, where patterns of M. bovis infection were investigated in badgers killed in road traffic accidents, give further perspective to the incidence of cattle TB in badgers."[33] The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) provided some evidence that cattle infected badgers with TB, which suggests that there could be a cycle of infection in areas where badgers live in close proximity to, and come into contact with, cattle.[34] However, what is still not known is the precise method of transmission of TB infection from badger to cattle, i.e. it is still not known whether direct contact is necessary for the transmission of the disease.[35]

28. There are also arguments about the extent of the impact of badgers on the rate of disease spread. The ISG concluded that cattle to cattle transmission was a very important factor in the spread of the disease in high incidence areas and that this was also the main cause of disease spreading to new areas.[36] However, Animal Health and local vets in the West Country believe that 70% of breakdowns in that region are attributable to badger to cattle transmission.[37] In evidence, Lord Rooker told us that Animal Health and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency had told the Government that the wildlife reservoir must be tackled if it intended to prevent cattle TB spread or eradicate cattle TB from the national herd (respectively).[38]

29. There are over 300,000 badgers in Great Britain.[39] Badgers are a protected species under the Badgers Act 1973, Badgers Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which prevents the killing, injuring or taking of badgers or the interference with their setts. The legislation was originally intended to afford badgers protection from badger-baiting.[40] Defra (and her equivalent departments in Scotland and Wales) are able to grant licences to kill and take badgers and interfere with their setts for the purpose, amongst others, of preventing the spread of disease.[41]

30. The Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979) prohibits causing local disappearance or serious disturbance to badgers (Recommendation No. 69).[42] When Dr Chris Cheeseman (Central Science Laboratory) gave evidence to the Committee in February 2006, he thought it likely that the secretariat of the Bern Convention would demand a justification for introducing a culling policy that would achieve the local extinction of badger populations.[43] However, Sir David King told the Committee that, in his opinion, a reduction by 70 to 80% (as achieved by the RBCT) would be within the terms of the Bern Convention.[44] Lord Rooker told the Committee that: "under no circumstances would the Government countenance a policy to eradicate badgers"[45]

Cost of the disease

31. Cattle TB continues to be a serious financial burden for the Government and the farming industry. Public expenditure on cattle TB has grown rapidly in recent years owing to the increase in testing, and the compensation paid for the increased number of reactor cattle found and slaughtered as a result. Spending is forecast to continue to grow unless the spread of TB is controlled. Currently, approximately £62m of the total expenditure on cattle TB is spent on testing and the payment of compensation to farmers (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Breakdown of Government's expenditure on tackling TB in cattle (£m)

Activity
1999/
2000
2000/
2001
2001/
2002
2002/
2003
2003/
2004
2004/
2005
2005/
2006
2006/
2007
Cattle Testing
17.6
13.3
5.4
24.7
33.2
36.4
36.7
37.8
Compensation
5.3
6.6
9.2
31.9
34.4
35.0
40.4
24.5
Culling Trial
4.6
6.6
6.0
6.6
7.3
7.2
6.2
1.6
Other Research
3.8
5.3
6.1
6.5
7.0
5.7
7.5
6.4
Veterinary Laboratories Agency
2.4
3.5
3.7
4.1
5.3
4.9
6.5
7.8
HQ/Overheads
4.5
0.9
0.1
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.7
TOTALS
38.2
36.2
30.5
74.5
88.2
90.5
99.1
79.8

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/expenditure.htm

32. In its consultation document Preparing for a New GB Strategy on Bovine TB; the Government estimated that the total annual expenditure on TB could increase to over £300 million by 2012-13.[46] This would mean that the total expenditure on cattle TB between now and 2013 would be approximately £1 billion. The introduction of table valuations in 2006 (see paragraph 34 below) has reduced the amount paid out in compensation in 2006-07 and it is likely that this will have an effect on future levels of expenditure. However, Lord Rooker told the Committee: "[TB] is costing a fortune. It is the best part of £100m a year now. It takes up 40 per cent of the Animal Health Agency's resources and it is growing. The disease is spreading. I would not argue about the figure that was projected quite a while ago"[47]

33. The average cost of one confirmed incident of cattle TB is estimated by Defra at about £27,000, divided roughly 70:30 between taxpayers and farmers respectively.[48] The total cost is made up of the value of cattle slaughtered, the resources used in herd testing, and the cost to the farmer of isolating animals and the effect of movement restrictions on the farm business.

34. Compensation for owners of cattle slaughtered after a TB breakdown is determined primarily through a table of valuations, based on average market prices for 47 pre-determined cattle categories. This system of table valuations was introduced after Defra concluded that there was "robust evidence" that the previous TB compensation arrangements had resulted in farmers being over-compensated for the value of their animals to the extent of some even making a net financial gain.[49] However, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) claims that the new system is unfair on farmers of specialist herds of pedigree cattle who are not receiving the compensation for the true value of their stock.[50] In Devon, the Committee heard from farmers of pedigree cattle who said that the new system had led to severe under-valuation of pedigree cattle of high genetic value, leaving farmers tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket for each pedigree animal slaughtered.[51]

35. The way Defra dealt with a TB outbreak in a herd of llamas shows that Defra has no clearly defined compensation policy for dealing with TB in species other than cattle.

36. In December 2007 Defra published its cost-sharing consultation paper Responsibility and cost sharing for animal health and welfare: next steps—your views matter.[52] The paper asked producers and keepers of livestock how the farming industry could be further involved in the decision-making process for animal health and welfare, such as during disease outbreaks, and whether this should be done through existing structures and organisations or new organisational structures. It also looked at the principles of how the funding for animal health and welfare can be shared between Government and the industry in the future. Lord Rooker made it very clear to the Committee that the Government was struggling under the financial burden of managing cattle TB: "The cost is unsustainable. We cannot tolerate the costs that we are spending, from the taxpayers' point of view, on this. This is a warning to all that things have to change."[53]

The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

37. The former Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) was a group of independent scientists who advised Ministers on how best to tackle the problem of cattle TB. The ISG was set up following the acceptance by Ministers of the recommendations contained in the Krebs Report (1997).[54] Krebs had concluded that there was compelling evidence that badgers were involved in transmitting infection to cattle, but that a large-scale field trial of the effects of badger culling on cattle TB incidence was necessary to quantify the effectiveness of culling as a control measure. The ISG has said of the Krebs Report:

    From this it was clear that the problem of TB in cattle was extremely complex, still poorly understood and that previous policies to control the disease had been inadequate. It recognised that substantial further work was necessary if an informative framework was to be established that would be adequate to underpin an effective policy to control the disease in the future.

    The role of the ISG is to provide the scientific base for such a policy. From the outset we have adopted a holistic approach, recognising that sustainable control policies could only be achieved through a better understanding of the epidemiology of TB in cattle and wildlife reservoirs. Implicit in our approach is the recognition that the widespread elimination of badgers from large tracts of the countryside would not be politically or socially acceptable, hence we have sought to explore a much wider consideration of the problem and its possible solution(s).[55]

38. The ISG's terms of reference were:

To advise Ministers on implementation of the Krebs Report on bovine TB in cattle and badgers by:

  • overseeing the design and analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) to test the effectiveness of badger culling as a means of controlling bovine TB;
  • regularly monitoring the progress of, and outputs from, the trial and assessing any important differences in results between treatments;
  • monitoring data on the Mycobacterium bovis situation in areas and species outside the trial;
  • reporting to Ministers on progress; and
  • advising, as requested, on related issues.[56]

39. Ministers explicitly told the ISG that elimination of badgers over large tracts of countryside was not acceptable as future policy.[57] The trial's aim was "not total depopulation of an area; rather it was to achieve the maximum level of removal that was reasonably attainable in practice, and, importantly, defensible in environmental, welfare and political terms."[58] Therefore, badger welfare was considered essential to the integrity of the RBCT and taken into account during its design to ensure that badgers suffered as little as possible. It was considered important that any culling method should not be perceived to be cruel by the public as that could lead to public criticism of the trial and affect any future policy decision on culling.[59] Consequently, cage trapping and shooting were selected as the most humane form of culling, and a "closed season" was called during the times when cubs were usually born and weaned.

40. The trial aimed to compare, under scientific conditions in the field, the relative impact of two different approaches to culling as compared to not removing badgers at all. The two types of culling were:

  • "proactive"—where the aim was to remove at the outset as large a proportion as possible of the badgers resident in the trial area and maintain this population suppression by subsequent culls, and
  • "reactive" —where culling was undertaken only on the occurrence of a confirmed breakdown, with the aim of removing all badger social groups with access to the farm where the breakdown had occurred.

41. The third, survey only, area was used as an experimental control. The trial was designed to ensure that it provided epidemiological data on both cattle and badgers that could not be gained any other way.

42. The trial areas, each 100km² in size, were in groups of three, known as "triplets". There were ten triplets in the trial which were selected from the areas showing the highest incidence of TB herd breakdowns. The selection process aimed for the three areas in each triplet to be as nearly identical as possible in terms of the number and size of cattle holdings, breakdown histories, surface areas, landscape characteristics and badger densities, but this was not always possible. Once the triplet areas had been selected, the precise boundaries were adjusted to take into account the boundaries of farms and associated badger social groups, and features such as roads and rivers.[60]

43. The first culls took place between December 1998 and December 2002. The level of trapping that took place in the proactive cull was on average 40 nights of trapping (where traps are set and revisited the next morning when the badgers caught would be dispatched by gunshot) per square kilometre per year for five years.[61] There were 62 reactive culling operations, with an average of 42.6 traps being deployed per night on each operation.

44. As examined further in Part Three, the ISG found that reactive culling was associated with an estimated 27% increase in the incidence of confirmed cattle herd breakdowns. The ISG recommended that the culling operation be allowed to continue until the start of the next closed season to allow a further analysis of the data. However, Ministers took the decision to suspend reactive culling from November 2003. [62] Subsequently, the decision to suspend the cull has been questioned. The Independent Scientific Review of the RBCT and Associated Epidemiological Research, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, said that "[f]rom a narrow scientific point of view that ignores the political and possibly legal implications of the experiment appearing to cause increased herd breakdowns, the reactive treatment was abandoned too soon, before the policy option of reactive culling could be properly evaluated."[63] The NFU also expressed its "surprise" at the decision to end the reactive cull.[64]

45. The proactive badger culling programme ended in 2005 and since then, in preparing its Final Report, the ISG completed its final trial surveys and refined its survey analysis. The ISG prioritised the publication of its findings in leading peer reviewed scientific journals and concurrently released relevant data to ensure that a full assessment of its work could be made by the scientific community. The ISG's work was also subject to an independent audit.[65]

46. The Final Report was published on 18 June 2007 and the ISG was disbanded on 30 June 2007. The conclusions of the Final Report are considered in greater detail in Part Three.

Vaccines

47. Tuberculosis is a complex disease and therefore developing an effective vaccine for humans or animals has proved to be "at the very edge of our scientific understanding".[66] In 1997, the Krebs Report had concluded that: "The best prospect for control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine".[67] Defra adopted this recommendation and established a vaccination programme which is overseen by the TB Vaccine Programme Advisory Group (VPAG), made up of scientific experts, policy makers and representatives of the animal health industry. It is chaired by Professor Douglas Young an internationally recognised expert in human TB vaccines from Imperial College. In 2001, the ISG set up a Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee which reported to Ministers in 2003 its advice on future research requirements. Most of the recommendations from the Study have been taken forward by the Department and are overseen by VPAG.

48. In addition, Defra's Chief Veterinary Officer chairs a Vaccine Steering Group (VSG) which is identifying the administrative and legal processes that need to be followed to enable a vaccine to be fully tested, evaluated and then used with minimum delay.

49. Research is underway to vaccinate cattle experimentally with Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) and other vaccine candidates. Professor Young said that research was aiming to use the existing BCG vaccine and build onto it to make a more effective cattle vaccine.[68] Research has found that BCG works better as a neonatal vaccine.[69] However, a vaccine based on BCG will make cattle react to the test as if they were infected and therefore it is incompatible with the standard test and slaughter policy for disease control and contravenes EU legislation.[70] Consequently, alongside the research into a cattle vaccine, a diagnostic test is also being developed to differentiate vaccinated from infected animals.

50. Professor Young and Professor Glyn Hewinson (member of VPAG and head of the TB Research Group at the VLA) provided the Committee with a timeline of vaccination research. They told us that real progress has been made in the last three years in the development of the diagnostic test to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals.[71] It was likely that a suitable test would be available in 2015. They also estimated that a licensed neonatal BCG vaccine could be available in 2012 and a licensed cattle vaccine that improves on BCG could be available from 2015.

51. The VLA told the Committee that it is now reasonably certain that a licensed injectable vaccine for badgers would be available for use in 2010, provided it was approved by the EU Veterinary Medicines Directorate. It would also require a Home Office Project Licence and a Natural England Licence before use. A licensed oral formulation of the vaccine for badgers would take longer, but could be available from 2012.

52. The Committee were told that the delay in producing a badger vaccine was in part due to the complex and technical nature of the science employed, but also due in part to the legislative and bureaucratic requirements of producing a vaccine. Professor Hewinson said "We are spending millions of pounds showing that BCG is safe in badgers and it is being used by more people than any other vaccine."[72]

53. Other countries are also researching into cattle and wildlife TB vaccines: New Zealand is seeking a vaccine for possums; the Republic of Ireland for cattle and badgers; and the USA for deer.[73] Research into vaccines in the UK is underpinned by strong collaborative projects with the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand. The UK is also participating in a cattle vaccine research project in Ethiopia.[74]

54. Defra has said that it sees the development of a TB vaccine for badgers and cattle as a long-term goal and a substantial part of the Defra research programme focuses on this. Over the past seven years Defra has invested more than £10.5 million in vaccine development and associated research.[75] By April 2008, total investment in vaccine development will have reached more than £17.8 million since 1998, with over £5.5 million invested in cattle and badger vaccine research this financial year. Of the £5.5 million, approximately £3.5 million is spent on cattle vaccine research and £2.5 million on badger vaccine research.[76]

55. Professor Douglas Young warned the Committee that a vaccine should not be considered a "magic bullet" that would solve the problem of cattle TB in the UK. He said that research could produce a range of tools such as injectable BCG or an improved cattle vaccine, but that the Government would need to think carefully how it would use these tools as policy options. For example, would a vaccine be used if it only gave 80% protection? Professor Young told the Committee that Defra had only recently taken on board the idea that those undertaking vaccine research would find it extremely useful if they had some knowledge of the direction to be taken by Defra's policy on vaccines.[77] Defra says that consideration is now being given to policy options for how a vaccine might be used for cattle and badgers, along with other control measures, with the aim of reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. A TB Vaccines Programme has been set up within Defra to bring together the research and policy development. The policy options will be developed and informed by veterinary advice, economic analysis and external stakeholder input which will be sought throughout the policy development process.[78]

56. The ISG Final Report endorsed the need for continued research, but thought that an effective vaccine should be seen as a long-term goal owing to the practical obstacles in its development.[79] It also advised that it was critical that Defra should identify a policy framework in which a cattle vaccine could be used.[80]

57. Despite Lord Rooker warning that Government expenditure on cattle TB could not continue at its current levels, he told the Committee that the funding currently in place for research on cattle and badger vaccines would continue.[81] However, the question of who would pay for the delivery of a licensed vaccine was a different matter: "if we found a vaccine for the wildlife who would pay for it?"[82]


11   Q 9 Back

12   Q 351 Back

13   Department for Environment, Planning and Countryside, Animal Health and Welfare Strategy: Welsh Assembly Government Action Plan 2007-08 Back

14   The gamma interferon test is a laboratory based blood test. Gamma interferon is an immunological hormone that is produced after the stimulation of blood cells with antigens such as bovine tuberculin. Back

15   "Minister promises a TB policy 'specific for Wales'", Farmers Weekly, 27 July 2007 Back

16   Rural Development Sub-committee, Inquiry into bovine tuberculosis, January 2008 Back

17   Ibid, p 1 Back

18   Ibid, recommendation 7 Back

19   Q 538 Back

20   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 57 Back

21   http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/tbinyh.pdf Back

22   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 21 Back

23   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 144 Back

24   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Regulatory Impact Assessment: pre-movement testing in England, p 2  Back

25   Q 538 Back

26   See Annex. Back

27   http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/premovement/index.htm Back

28   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, TB in cattle - reducing the risk, Pre-and Post-movement testing in Great Britain, August 2007 Back

29   http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/default.htm Back

30   Regulatory Impact Assessment: pre-movement testing in England, p 4 Back

31   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Pre-Movement Testing In England: updated assessment of costs and benefits, January 2007  Back

32   Zuckerman, S. (1980), Badgers and Tuberculosis, HMSO, London; and Krebs, J.R., Anderson, R., Clutton-Brock, T., Morrison, I., Young, D., Donnelly, C., Frost, S. and Woodroffe, R (1997), Bovine Tuberculosis in cattle and badgers, MAFF Publications, PB 3423 Back

33   HC Deb, 22 January 2008, col 1974W; HC Deb, 5 June 2006, col 147-8W; HC Deb, 27 February 2006,col 261-2W Back

34   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 20 Back

35   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 173 Back

36   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 15 Back

37   Q 539, Ev 167, 173. Note: Animal Health, previously the State Veterinary Service is the government's executive agency primarily responsible for ensuring that farmed animals in England, Scotland and Wales are healthy, disease-free and well looked after. Back

38   Q 539 Back

39   Q 642 Back

40   Q 635 Back

41   Protection of Badgers Act 1992, section 10 Back

42   The "Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats", agreed in Bern on 19 September 1979, lists the European badger (Meles meles) as a protected fauna species (Appendix III) and prohibits "the use of all indiscriminate means of capture and killing and the use of all means capable of causing local disappearance" of a species (Article 8); http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_protection/ Back

43   Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Bovine TB: badger culling, Q 49 Back

44   Q 413 Back

45   Q 642 Back

46   Defra, Preparing for a new GB Strategy on bovine tuberculosis, Consultation Document, February 2004, p 23 Back

47   Q 537 Back

48   Defra, Cost benefit analysis of badger management as a component of bovine TB control in England, 2005, p 1 Back

49   Defra, Controlling the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling, a consultation document, 2005, p 21 Back

50   "Table valuations don't reflect the market says NFU", NFU press notice, http://www.nfuonline.com/x2977.xml Back

51   A "pedigree animal" means a bovine animal in respect of which a pedigree certificate has been issued by a recognised breed society and presented to the Secretary of State or an agent acting on his behalf by the day of the assessment of the category into which the animal falls. Back

52   http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/ahw-nextsteps/index.htm Back

53   Q 542 Back

54   Krebs, J.R., Anderson, R., Clutton-Brock, T., Morrison, I., Young, D., Donnelly, C., Frost, S. and Woodroffe, R (1997), Bovine Tuberculosis in cattle and badgers, (MAFF Publications, PB 3423) Back

55   Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB: An Epidemiological Investigation into Bovine Tuberculosis, December 1999, p 65, paragraphs 12.0.2-12.0.3 Back

56   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 201 Back

57   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 39 Back

58   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 39 Back

59   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 40 Back

60   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 38 Back

61   Q 25, and Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 50 Back

62   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 107 Back

63   Independent Scientific Review of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and Associated Epidemiological Research, 4 March 2004, p 30. Back

64   http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/farming/2003/11/badger_cull.shtml Back

65   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 13 Back

66   Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Bovine TB, Q 7 Back

67   Krebs, J.R., Anderson, R., Clutton-Brock, T., Morrison, I., Young, D., Donnelly, C., Frost, S. and Woodroffe, R (1997), Bovine Tuberculosis in cattle and badgers (MAFF Publications, PB 3423) Back

68   Q 254 Back

69   Q 254 Back

70   Ev 63 Back

71   Qq 259-60 Back

72   Q 302 Back

73   Q 299 Back

74   Ev 62, 64 Back

75   HC Deb, 19 April 2007, col 434 Back

76   Q 309 Back

77   Q 317 Back

78   http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/vaccination/index.htm Back

79   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 181 Back

80   Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, p 152 Back

81   Q 660 Back

82   Q 616 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 27 February 2008