Westminster Hall

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

Monday 13 October 2025

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

It goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It went on:

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

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

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

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

between 1998 and 2005,

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

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

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

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

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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

[Irene Campbell]

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

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

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

[Irene Campbell]

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

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

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

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

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

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

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

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

The Government said in response to the petition:

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

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

16:43

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

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

[Sarah Dyke]

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

[Sarah Dyke]

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

[Olivia Blake]

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

[Sarah Dyke]

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

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

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

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

16:52

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

The economics of the policy are just as indefensible. Policing the cull costs over £1 million per zone. The official badger cull trials cost millions, but the results were then ignored. Meanwhile, alternative methods, such as the Gatcombe strategy or improved skin testing, offer more effective, humane and cost-effective options.

Let us not overlook the perverse incentives in the current system. Farmers receive far more in compensation for TB-affected cattle than they would receive from selling the animals at market. That does not drive good practice, and nor does it support the long-term health of the herd. A fairer and more robust approach would be regular MOT-style health checks for farms.

Stronger badger culling is not the answer. It is scientifically unsound, economically wasteful and morally wrong. We should invest in real solutions such as biosecurity, testing, farm management and ending practices such as slurry spreading on grazing fields. I am pleased the Government are working towards a new national strategy to bring down bovine TB, and I am proud to be part of a party that has a manifesto pledge to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Although the focus on non-lethal culls for badgers is a definite improvement to the status quo, I urge the new strategy to take into account new science and evidence that calls into question the link between badgers and livestock.

It is time that we stopped this failed and cruel policy, and focused instead on tackling bovine tuberculosis at its true sources. Let us not wait until the end of this Parliament to do the right thing: let us end this barbaric practice now.

16:56

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the 102,000-plus petitioners on signing the petition, including the 185 from my constituency, and I join them in opposing the badger cull. I am so glad that it is this Labour Government that are looking at the evidence and the science in order to support farmers, the whole community and of course badgers, with better biosecurity, testing and, if necessary, vaccination.

I have been debating the badger cull since I was the shadow Environment Secretary. At the time, I pored over the science and came to the clear conclusion that the badger cull was not the way forward. We needed to cull the cull and ultimately to put in place the right measures. I am so glad that, since that point, when just Gloucestershire and Somerset were involved in the culling experiment, further science has been developed. Today we know that about 250,000 badgers have been killed, which is around half the population of badgers. In some areas, that amounts to about 70% of the population. Badgers are now becoming an endangered species in our country. They are crudely killed, and many, of course, are not carrying the TB virus at all. Indeed, this places an increased risk on farmers and their cattle.

As we have heard, 94% of transmission of bovine TB is from cow to cow, but the poor badger is being scapegoated. Bovine TB is present across our environment, and we have heard many examples of that already. It is recognised that farmers and Government want to stop the spread of this disease, and we need to do that by following the right methodology. To facilitate that, we must take the money being spent on the cull and ensure that it goes to farmers. Indeed, there also needs to be additional support to ensure that we get on top of this disease.

Bovine TB follows the same pattern as human TB and other communicable diseases. We need testing, isolation of the disease and, where necessary, vaccination. We need only think about covid to know that the same methodologies that were recommended to us need to be applied to TB in cattle. Controlling the movement of cattle and putting in place more rigorous testing—the right testing—can make such a difference to livestock, stopping cross-infection between herds.

This is all about good public health, which we are so familiar with. We practise that worldwide, so why be different with this community? It is seriously letting farmers down. Scapegoating and slaughtering badgers does not aid farmers in managing the disease.

The culling has been condemned as inhumane. Up to 22.8% of badgers shot while free-roaming were still alive after five minutes. That demonstrates significant levels of suffering, yet monitoring of culling is at an all-time low. The evidence should make the Government determine that the cull is the wrong measure. Professor Rosie Woodroffe’s research, which dates back to 2007, has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the badger cull, because of the way TB is transmitted. She has described it as the

“largest manipulative ecological experiment ever conducted”.

If anything, the risk of transmission from cattle to badger is far higher than the converse. Consistent DEFRA research shows that culling has no impact on bovine TB, yet culling continues. When I asked the then Secretary of State a question before the summer recess, I was told that Labour is now serious about looking at the science. I welcome that, but the cull has continued for two seasons under our watch, so it is really important that we bring it to an end.

I, too, met the team from Gatcombe farm when they came to Parliament before the summer. I probed the farmer and the vet deeply for about an hour to understand the science and the methodology. I spent time hearing about the impact and about how a farm that had once been ridden with TB was now free of bovine TB. Surely that is the outcome that we want for all our farmers.

We have to look at the testing regime. The traditional skin test will only show the presence of the disease when sufficiently loaded with reactor cells. By that point, the cow could have had advanced TB in its lungs for some time and could have managed to spread the disease to other cattle. A more advanced screening polymerase chain reaction test can identify the disease at a far earlier stage, so deploying that is a better approach. We all know that we can scale PCR testing, as we did over the covid pandemic.

Research at Gatcombe, recognised elsewhere, showed that an accumulation of slurry led to a concentration of disease. Untreated and infested, the slurry is spread on to fields; it is then ingested by snails, slugs and other animals, and moves into the badger food chain. The risk of cattle-to-badger infection is incredibly strong, as PCR testing has proved. Further research has shown that intensification of farming increases the risk. Cattle wading through their own faeces, and that of other cattle, means a greater risk of cross-infection. It is far less likely where cattle graze in the open, as they eat the grass between the cowpats.

We often think about TB purely as a respiratory disease, but we see lesions in other organs as well. It is now recognised that farming intensification and poor hygiene are the route of disease transmission; that is a basic thing that we learned through covid. Good biosecurity, testing and removal of cattle are the way to address this. Again, that is something that we practised during covid.

The Gatcombe strategy works and should be adopted. The question is therefore not “What should be done?”, but “How will it be done, and how will the Government support it?” We need to use sensitive testing to identify the pathogens in faeces and blood, cut off the routes of infection, identify disease before cattle become infectious, ensure scrupulous hygiene and removal of faeces at pace and test new cattle before integrating with existing livestock with a more sensitive Actiphage test.

The TB-infested farm has become a TB-free farm, all without killing a single badger, just by removing infected cattle. No badger vaccination was needed. In fact, it was proven at the time that the highest risk of infection comes from the most intensely farmed cattle, which are not free to graze.

An infected cow produces about 500 times more faeces than a badger. Badger hygiene is also known to be far more fastidious, and badgers are likely to concentrate in one area. The risk of badger-to-cattle infection is minuscule. It is the other way around. Studies have shown that badgers do not approach cattle, so airborne infection via a badger breathing on a cow is so unlikely, if it is ever encountered.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I hear Member after Member talking about badgers sneezing on cows and breathing on cows, but badgers can spread bovine TB to cattle through urine and droppings. Bovine TB costs this country £150 million a year, yet currently the Government have invested only £40 million. I urge the hon. Member and the Minister to agree that we should significantly increase that investment to ensure the effective vaccine roll-out that we keep hearing about.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, but it is important to understand the scale of the deposits from cows wading in their faeces compared with those from badgers, which have a far more fastidious hygiene regime. The risk of infection from badgers is very much reduced. If we were not putting the faeces from cows into the badgers’ food chain, badger faeces would be TB-free. The science speaks to that. We should stop putting untreated slurry on our fields, so we can take the TB out of the badgers’ food chain.

Two steps now need our focus. The first is allowing the testing of herds to show that they are free from infection before they become infectious. We need to do that early, routinely and assuredly, with the right testing. That is for the Government to scale. Secondly, we need to make sure that we treat slurry before it is placed on our fields. Anaerobic digestion is one solution.

Let us stop the cull, engage better with testing, control movements and put in place the biosecurity measures that will make improvements. As with all communicable diseases, we must always ensure high levels of hygiene. That is one of the basics of public health, and it should be applied here. Above all, we know that it works: it benefits farmers, it reduces their stress and anxiety, and ultimately it will save not only cattle and farms, but the badger.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call Perran Moon.

17:08

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Stuart; it is a rare honour to serve under your chairship. I am pleased to speak in this debate. The petition, “End the Badger cull and adopt other approaches to bovine TB control”, had received 102,458 signatures at the final count, 389 of which were from my constituents in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the fifth-highest number across all parliamentary constituencies. I will join them, making it 390.

It is worth noting that many of the constituencies with the highest number of signatures are in the south-west of England—I note that half of Cornwall’s representatives are here today—and Wales, where the issue is particularly resonant. As has been pointed out, bovine tuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease that primarily affects cattle. It is caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which can spread to humans, so it has implications both for livestock and for public health.

I am proud that so many of my constituents have expressed concern. Their engagement reflects the fact that Cornwall and the south-west of England are considered high-risk areas for bovine TB, according to the Badger Trust. I make clear to the Minister the strength of feeling among my constituents. Few of us—perhaps none—can claim to be an expert on bovine TB, but we can all understand the impact of the disease on cattle farming, and the deep sadness that many people feel about the culling of badgers, which are the largest remaining carnivores in Britain.

At a time of renewed interest in protecting our natural environment, including efforts to rewild parts of the UK and reintroduce species such as the beaver in parts of Cornwall, this debate is especially important. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a step change in tackling this devastating disease, and the progress that they have made towards vaccinating badgers to support healthier populations. Does the Minister agree that the aim of Government policy in this area must be to preserve our wildlife—including badgers, which play such an important role in our ecosystem—while protecting our farming communities, which are so vital to the nation?

17:11

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras—pur dha—to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). If we are being boastful about the number of people who are supporting the petition, the St Ives constituency, I should say that which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, came first with 470 signatures. It is worth pausing for a moment to respect the constituency for having achieved that figure.

I do not want to make light of the issue, though. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and others have rightly drawn attention to how it is a matter of deep emotion for everyone, but especially for the farmers who have been very deeply affected. Many farmers in my constituency have had a reactor and have been closed down and lost cattle. That has a very significant emotional impact on the family and on the viability of the holding, which is not something that we should dismiss or ignore.

I have been involved in this debate for many years. I was a member of the Agriculture Committee back in 1997—that shows my age—when randomised badger control trials started. At that stage, the independent scientific group used triplet areas, with proactive cull, reactive cull or no action, and my constituency was included. I was a strong supporter of the trial. I ran the gauntlet of a lot of animal rights campaigners at the time by supporting a cull in the area.

I believe that when we are establishing any kind of policy, we must base it on sound science; we cannot simply conjecture. The research by the independent scientific group provided a lot of baseline evidence against which we have been able to track and compare data over many years, which is really important. I supported it not because I wanted to see badgers culled, or because I felt that they were guilty, but on the basis that we needed to get the evidence. At the time, that was the only way of getting the evidence necessary to base our policy on sound science.

Since then, there have been many further iterations in the development of the policy. I remember the policy of proactive culling, which is rightly being brought to a close by the Government now, being brought forward within hotspot areas in 2014. The debates in the House of Commons at the time were sharply divided between team farmer and team badger—I think they even referred to themselves as such—while I was saying, “What about team science?” We need to base this policy on the evidence. Some people will remember the then right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was the Secretary of State, accusing badgers of shifting the goalposts, which caused a great deal of mirth. We had a lot of fun at his expense on that occasion, I am sorry to say.

It is important that the Government look very carefully at the science as they go forward. To pre-empt what I will say at the end of my comments, I think they are coming to the right conclusion. I welcome the approach they appear to be taking. People have referred to badgers being involved in the spread of bovine TB, and it is reasonable to say that the science indicates that they are, but I would argue, and the evidence appears to show, that they are involved to a lesser extent than cattle-to-cattle transmission.

A 2021 University of Cambridge molecular genetics paper by van Tonder et al. demonstrated that, on the basis of the studies they undertook, bovine TB is 17 times more likely to spread between cattle than to originate from badgers. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I imagine that she and her scientists have been looking closely at whole genome sequencing, which makes it possible not just to identify that there is a reactor, but to identify the source of the bovine TB and trace the sequencing process. That and the work of the University of Cambridge indicates where the infection originates. It is important to understand that when one is coming to conclusions in this respect.

While we were debating the matter in 2014, I was talking to Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who was involved in the randomised badger control trials and other work and who advises the Government on their partnership group. We were working with farmers in the constituency on the first community-led badger vaccination project. The Zoological Society of London did some great work at the time. We recruited a lot of support among the community of people who were not vaccinators, although some wished to undertake the training to become vaccinators.

That was the start of the first vaccination project where the community offered to support our farmers in the roll-out in Penwith—that is in the Land’s End area, for those that do not know my constituency well. Unfortunately, in 2015 I had to go on sabbatical from the House of Commons and therefore was not able to follow it as closely as I would have liked to as a Member of Parliament. There was then a worldwide shortage of the BCG vaccine, so projects like that could not proceed for two years. Nevertheless, the work of the Zoological Society of London continued across Penwith and the St Austell and Helston areas and is now rolling out further work elsewhere in Cornwall. A paper it published last August in People and Nature—for which, I say to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, the abstract was in Kernewek, which is a first—demonstrated that the vaccination trials over four years in the St Austell area showed very productive results. I hope that the Minister and her scientists are prepared to look closely at that.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a helpful speech that benefits from his huge amount of experience. I congratulate the 229 people from my constituency who signed the petition. On the basis of team science, does my hon. Friend agree with Keith Cutler, a constituent of mine who is a past president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, who has pointed out in academic papers that the DEFRA testing is really not up to standard and that a far better testing regime is needed? With better testing, there could be better monitoring and better control, preventing the cattle-to-cattle transmission, which, as we have heard, accounts for the greatest proportion.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is of course correct. The testing regime has been hotly debated—indeed, not just debated; successive Government Ministers and scientists have promised progress on the testing regime for many years. In 1997, the agriculture Select Committee looked at this issue and the benefits of shifting from the tuberculin skin test to the gamma interferon test. The gamma interferon is often used and is a much more sensitive test. It produces many more false positives, which perhaps one might argue is a good thing, and fewer false negatives, so perhaps, if one wants to have a baseline of clean cattle, one might use it, but it adds to the complexity. None of this is perfect, of course, but perhaps the Minister might address the issue of the testing regimes that the Government are prepared to consider using to get on top of the disease.

I have a range of questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The first is about the tuberculin test and the gamma interferon test. I remember that back in 1997 there was a lot of talk about the diagnostic instrument for vaccinated animals test, or DIVA test, which has been referred to already, to differentiate between infected and vaccinated cattle. Clearly, that would be a golden bullet and enormously helpful to the industry, because until we get across that line, no cattle vaccine, no matter how effective it is, can be used, because farmers would not be able to sell cattle into the marketplace if they were not able to undertake that differentiation test. In 1997 we were told that an effective DIVA test was up to 10 years away. Every time we look at it, it is always 10 years away; the date simply rolls forward. We have been dealing with this issue for many years, so I would like to know this from the Minister: are we any closer to securing a DIVA test?

Secondly, if we are going to base policy on vaccination, are there enough vaccinators and do we have a mechanism through which we can create more? My understanding is that at present we have nothing like enough people who have the licence to undertake vaccination. When we were rolling out the community-led vaccination trial in my own constituency all those years ago, we knew that we were fortunate to have a number of people available to us then, but we also knew at the time that if any of them were to fall ill, we would struggle to continue the work. Clearly, there needs to be significant investment in training, and it is not something that can simply be created overnight. Maybe we could bring in a lot of vets, but that is an expensive way of doing it. Perhaps the Minister would like to advise us on that.

Gatcombe farm, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has been referred to on many occasions already, so I will not go into it, but have the Government taken a view of the Gatcombe trials? If so, what has been identified?

Can the Minister tell us whether we are on the cusp of the end of the culling? My understanding is that no new licences are likely to be granted. On the basis of the licences that have been granted, is it reasonable therefore to say that this winter will be the last when there is any culling at all? When the Government announced their policy last year, there was a lot of concern that there would be culling until the end of this Parliament, but it looks to me—I may be wrong—as if culling is going to end. If so, the vaccine, cattle security measures and biosecurity measures need to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

What lessons have the Government learned from the Welsh Assembly policy so far? Wales has been ahead of England and Cornwall for some time in rolling out vaccines. Have any lessons been learned through conversations with other Government Departments? Similarly, southern Ireland was undertaking a widespread cull policy, which it stopped. What lessons have been learned there? I do not know, and I wonder whether the Government are fully aware.

17:25

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate so well and for mentioning biosecurity.

Badger culling is a very important topic, not least to the campaigners in Worcester who have met with me, to whom I am grateful for their time, and to the 183 people in Worcester who signed the petition. It is also very important to our local farmers. I take a moment to pay tribute to our well-loved Bennetts, who create excellent ice cream, which I encourage anybody to come to Worcester and test. They have also been very accommodating and generous with their time in educating me about the challenges they face.

I shall focus on one aspect of the problem: testing. As an engineer, I have been quite shocked by the situation, because it seems like we are trying to navigate a Catch-22. The testing that is available, relatively rapidly and at relatively low cost, is too sensitive, and that means that we are faced with a false choice. We cannot distinguish an animal that is immunised from one that has an active infection. That leaves farmers with an impossible choice: either to immunise to try to prevent infection—but then to find themselves unable to detect early, respond to and manage an infection—or to rely on testing alone and wait for the inevitable outcome. With no preventive measures in place, they know an infection and an outbreak will come, and they will be left trying to manage it and the associated losses.

Is the Minister aware of any work being carried out to develop a low-cost blood sampling rapid lateral flow antibody test for bovine TB? It strikes me that if a less-sensitive, low-cost and rapid test could be deployed at scale and regularly by farmers, it could be a game changer, as other Members have said. This seems like a relatively simple and technologically available solution, even though it may take some research and development.

Post covid, the landscape around our ability to develop vaccines and low-cost tests has changed. Similarly, our Government have said that we will embrace agility and partnership, and will work with others to innovate and find new solutions to problems. I would appreciate the Minister’s explaining the work that the Government have been doing in this area, or meeting me after the debate to discuss further. This is a vital step that will enable us to eliminate bovine TB and end the need for culling.

17:29

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the 287 constituents in Scarborough and Whitby who signed the petition to call for an immediate end to badger culling. In my constituency, we are lucky to have dedicated groups of volunteers, such as the North Riding Badger Group, who are committed to the protection of badgers and their setts and habitats in the Scarborough and Whitby area.

As we have heard, bovine tuberculosis is a horrible disease that has a devastating impact on cattle and farmers’ livelihoods. In the past decade, more than 230,000 badgers have been culled in efforts by the Government and farmers to control bTB. Crucially, efforts to eradicate bTB must also protect the welfare of badgers. I appreciate that the Government are working on a comprehensive new strategy to eradicate bTB, which will end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament, and I welcome Government efforts to explore alternative ways to combat bTB, such as by boosting cattle testing and developing a cattle vaccine against bTB, but can we really justify another four years of badger culling? The evidence for its impact on bTB is weak at best, and persisting with this approach not only damages public confidence, but stalls progress towards more ethical and effective alternatives. I will be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister outlines what steps the Government are taking to accelerate the roll-out of vaccination programmes as a long-term and humane solution to bovine TB.

17:31

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Stuart. A massive thank you to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who introduced the debate so eloquently, and to the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition, 239 of whom live in Westmorland and Lonsdale. We are a constituency with lots of skin in the game, so to speak. I am the MP for Tommy Brock, the badger of Beatrix Potter fame, and the Member for a large number of the farms that were dear to Beatrix Potter’s heart, many of which have been devastated by the threat of bovine TB over the last few years. This subject goes to the heart of two great passions for, I think, most of us in this room: the welfare of our animals, both wildlife and livestock, and the future of our farming communities.

Bovine TB is a serious issue. It has had a devastating impact on farmers emotionally and financially. It is an ongoing animal welfare emergency, causing huge numbers of livestock to suffer and die. In just a single year from June 2024 to June ’25, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England alone because of TB, and we know that over the 12-year period in question, close to 250,000 badgers have been culled, so I wonder whether we can start from a point of agreement. We all want to eradicate bovine TB. The question is how. How do we do that in a way that is humane, proportionate and grounded in science?

It is interesting to note that the Government are now committed to ending badger culling by the end of this Parliament—by 2029 specifically—yet at the same time the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes provision for the killing of badgers if they get in the way of housing development. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos)—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

Go on: you can make my point for me.

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have been debating today badger culling to control TB, and I believe that badger culling should be phased out as quickly as possible, but the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides for the killing of badgers not to control TB—not for public health purposes—but for general public purposes. I ask the Government to look again at why that is justified. Why do we need additional legislation to kill badgers?

[Tim Farron]

I did not give my hon. Friend any warning whatsoever, so I thank him for his eloquence and for immediate springing to his feet on this issue, which he cares about deeply, as do I. Is it not ludicrous to outlaw the culling of badgers for scientific purposes—to try to reduce the spread of a dangerous disease—yet permit it if developers want it? That seems outrageous and is certainly lacking any kind of scientific underpinning.

Farmers, rural communities and all of us who care about animal welfare, wherever we live, deserve a clear, evidence-based plan from DEFRA that sets out how England will achieve TB-free status by 2038, with milestones, accountability and fair support, including very fair compensation for those on the frontline. The lack of direction since the Godfray review in 2018—under both the Government in power now and the Conservative one that preceded it—has increased and created uncertainty and frustration right across the industry. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling on Government to publish a transparent, science-led evaluation of all disease control measures, including cost-benefit analyses, vaccination data and surveillance outcomes, to ensure that every action taken is effective, humane and sustainable.

I echo some of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). We believe very much that the way forward must be safe, effective and firmly rooted in evidence. Running the risk of attempting to be reasonable on all this—a Liberal Democrat trait—the evidence on the science really is mixed.

To show my own long standing, I remember some time ago the last-but-one Labour DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—who is a good and decent man, I ought to say—at the NFU conference back in 2009. When he was pressed by farmers on why he would not support even a limited form of badger cull, his answer was, “Well, we would, but public opinion would not let us.” It is really important that we make evidence-based decisions. That was maybe very honest of the right hon. Gentleman, but it underpinned what is often the problem with democratic Governments: sometimes we make the wrong decisions because we do not think we will get away with the right ones.

The current DEFRA review, published in August, found that culling may reduce infection quickly in some high-density and high-risk populations. There is a big “but” coming, and it is this: badger vaccination delivers a more consistent reduction in TB prevalence across both the core and surrounding buffer zones, if delivered properly. That is a massive “if”, is it not?

Farmers lack trust in the vaccination plan because they lack trust in this Government and in their posture towards farmers and farming in general. Clearly, vaccination would be the way forward, but we can surely understand why farmers lack trust in a Government that have damaged them through inheritance tax changes—the family farm tax—and botched the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, and opened and shut windows for the likes of stewardship schemes and what have you.

This is not a Government that farmers currently trust, and the difficulty of rolling out a vaccination programme against that lack of trust is massively scaled up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the most important points that is often lost in this debate: the enormous toll that this process takes on our farming community. That toll may be the constant culling or, more accurately, the constant cycle of testing, which is hugely expensive for farmers. Many of the those who signed the petition in West Dorset said, “I would forgo the ability to sell my livestock if it meant I no longer had to keep going through the cost of repeated cycles of testing.” We need to find a solution, whether it be through vaccination or anything else, that preserves the rights of farmers to make a living.

[Tim Farron]

One of the reasons for that suspicion is that farmers know that vaccination is not simple. It might be the most effective way of dealing with the disease if it is rolled out properly, but it is logistically challenging and resource intensive. That is why the Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to invest heavily in improving delivery, to fund more research into how vaccination can be scaled, and to work with conservationists and farmers to make it viable on the ground. It has to go hand in hand with the Government keeping their promises on investment, particularly in the Weybridge HQ of the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

We face threats not just from bovine tuberculosis, but from bluetongue and avian influenza, not to mention, as all those who experienced it at the time will feel, the constant threat of a return of foot and mouth. The failure of this Government and their predecessor to invest properly in the APHA leaves us open and at risk—and again, it leaves farmers deeply suspicious about the Government’s way forward. We also need better surveillance. The DEFRA review that I mentioned a moment ago recommended more systematic monitoring, including the routine testing of found dead badgers, so that we can map TB hotspots accurately and target control measures effectively.

We have talked about non-lethal ways of dealing with the disease. Again, I reiterate that 21,586 cattle were slaughtered last year because of bovine TB. That is not a non-lethal way of dealing with the disease. There was a decline in new cases of around 42% over the previous seven years, but recent data suggests that that welcome reduction may now be plateauing. It is vital that we renew our efforts with a strategy that is both effective and humane.

I am moved by the animal welfare cost of this terrible threat that we have faced for many years, but I am also moved by the human cost, which has been mentioned by others. The farmers who deal with this issue—not just those whose herds get infected, but those who live with the constant threat—are not just financially impacted; they are deeply emotionally impacted, and at the worst possible time. The backdrop to this situation is the anxiety among our farming community—again, because of the threat of the family farm tax, which is coming in on 1 April next year and is driving many to the depths of despair. At the same time, for the first time since 1945, we no longer have a readily available farm payment scheme, which is an absolute outrage. That is a result of the last Government’s botched introduction of the new scheme, but this Government have ramped it up and made things worse.

What do I mean by that? The sustainable farming incentive closed overnight earlier this year in March, and is not likely to be reopened again until maybe this time next year—if they can get the computer system to work properly. We have mid-tier stewardship schemes ending in just a few weeks’ time. The new stewardship schemes open and then shut, and grant schemes open and then shut. Who gets into those schemes? The big guys who have the resources to be there, with a finger on the mouse, ready to bid when that moment arises. The small family farmers—the ones who are best at animal welfare, by the way—are the ones locked out.

Therefore, as we talk about the threat to family farming, to animal welfare and to the mental health of our farmers, we cannot look at bovine tuberculosis on its own. It is against the backdrop of a systematic—whether intended or accidental—annihilation of family farming in this country.

I hear politicians of all political colours saying that British farming is the best in the world; they are right, but rarely do they know why they are right. They are right because of the culture of family farming in this country. Family farming means close attention to detail, to husbandry, to animal welfare, to environmental standards and to food standards. That is why, in tackling bovine tuberculosis, this Government need a plan that wins the trust of farmers and of those who care about animals, but also underpins the future of small family farms, which are essential to our country.

17:42

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I first declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening of this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for her as a passionate advocate of, and champion for, animal welfare. I also thank the 102,458 signatories to the petition, including the 143 from my constituency of Epping Forest.

We have heard many contributions from across the House today about many of the tools in the toolbox for tackling bovine tuberculosis. We have heard from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Some of the key elements that came out in those contributions were the mental health impacts of this disease—I will touch on that later in my speech—and the different tools that are currently available to us, or are being developed, to tackle the disease. No particular tool is perfect, but we need to be looking at a combination of tools in the toolbox.

I think we can all agree that, as we have heard, bovine tuberculosis has devastating consequences, and at present there is no single method that, in isolation, is perfect for combating it. During this debate it has been encouraging to hear colleagues from across the House reiterate the fundamental key aim, which is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB. That aim should unite all stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare groups, scientists and veterinarians. Loud and clear in this debate is the importance of animal welfare—the welfare of the cattle and also the badgers.

As we have heard, there are various numbers for the cattle that are slaughtered, but many thousands are slaughtered each year in the UK as part of the effort to eradicate this awful disease. Equally, there are different levels for the cost, but it is estimated that the cost to the UK taxpayer is £150 million per year, with additional costs falling on the cattle sector itself.

Bovine TB takes a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, entire valued herds. It has devastating impacts on farming businesses up and down the land, and as we have heard across the Chamber it has significant effects on the mental health of everyone involved.

In the last Session, I was a member of the EFRA Committee and triggered an inquiry and report on rural mental health. Some of the most powerful evidence we took was from the veterinary and farming sectors about the mental health impacts on farmers and other workers, including vets, from bovine TB. The stress and anxiety around the testing of a herd, the trauma and consequences of having positive reactors in a herd, and the implications and outcomes of infection in a herd are devastating. We cannot overstate the loss of animal life and the human emotional impact that result from infectious disease outbreaks in farming.

My experiences as a veterinary surgeon in the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 are a huge part of my journey to this place as a Member of Parliament. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.

Bovine TB is a very complicated situation, with complex epidemiology that, I am afraid, still very much implicates wildlife reservoirs such as badgers in the spread of the disease. The disease can be spread between cattle, from cattle to people—it is important to realise it is a zoonotic disease—and between cattle and badgers. The latter transmission can be from cow to badger and vice versa. The review for the Government by Godfray in 2018, which was updated in August this year, clearly states that there is transmission to and from badgers and cattle, and that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to cattle herds. The Godfray review also emphasised the impact that the disease has on the welfare and wellbeing of farmers and their families—a discussion we have heard today.

In October 2023, NFU Cymru released the results of a survey it had conducted. Of the 507 farmers who had completed the survey, 85% said bovine TB had negatively impacted their mental health or the mental health of someone in their family. Over 93% said they were extremely concerned or very concerned about bovine TB. The 2025 update to the Godfray review also took time to stress the significant research undertaken on bovine TB and its mental health impacts, and recommended that

“those dealing directly with farmers in a regulatory or advisory capacity, received basic mental health first aid and suicide awareness training.”

I strongly support that recommendation and very much urge the Government to work to implement it as soon as possible, in addition to other, similar recommendations that we made in our EFRA report on rural mental health.

As we have heard today, there are significant challenges with the testing for and diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Testing is so important, and more work is needed on the optimal tests for the disease, taking into consideration both sensitivity and specificity. There is a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the currently used single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—SICCT—test. Godfray talks about the move to the more sensitive single intradermal cervical tuberculin—SICT—test. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association also talks about the potential roll-out of the interferon-gamma test as a supplement to the SICCT. Those diagnostic tests are just one tool in our toolbox to control and eradicate bovine TB.

During the tenure of the previous Conservative Government, in a major scientific breakthrough, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a companion candidate test—the so-called DIVA test—to detect infections among vaccinated animals, and differentiate a vaccinated animal from a naturally infected one, and the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about that test. That major breakthrough brought us closer to being able to strategically vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease but, as we have heard, we are not quite there yet with that test. I urge the Government and the Minister that this must remain a huge and urgent priority, and I hope she will update us on the progress of the field trials and roll-out of that vital tool.

The previous Government drove forward an ambitious strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That strategy set out a range of evidence-led interventions to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife, including by strengthening cattle testing and movement controls; introducing new help for herd owners to improve biosecurity measures on farms and manage down the risk of bringing the disease into their herds; and supporting the deployment of badger vaccination. I cannot stress enough how important biosecurity measures are in the control of this disease, just as they are for many other infectious diseases, as we have heard in the debate, and that too was emphasised by the Godfray review and by the British Veterinary Association.

I cannot pass the word “biosecurity” without stressing that this issue is another clear demonstration of how crucial it is that our biosecurity is firing on all cylinders, and that the APHA is fully equipped at the forefront of the UK’s fight against animal disease outbreaks and their potentially devastating consequences. After pressing the Government no fewer than 17 times in this Parliament to fully fund the redevelopment of APHA’s headquarters in Weybridge, I am relieved that their national security strategy committed £1 billion to do so. I welcome that major commitment from the Government, which continues the work started by the previous Conservative Government.

However, that £1 billion, combined with the £1.2 billion provided by the previous Conservative Government in 2020, still leaves us with a shortfall of £400 million from the £2.8 billion that the National Audit Office outlined is required. The current plans mean that the redevelopment will not be complete until 2034, with interim laboratories not in place until 2027-28. The 2025 update of the Godfray review explicitly concludes that a “lack of investment” in the APHA, and in DEFRA more widely, is still limiting our control of bovine TB. That needs to be addressed with urgency.

Our wider short-term biosecurity is equally vulnerable, as outlined this year in the alarming findings of two new reports by the EFRA Committee. The “Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis” report stated that seizures of illegal meat imports have soared from 164 tonnes in 2023 to 235 tonnes in 2024. If we think about the amount that we are not detecting, it is a frightening statistic. Meat being handled in poor sanitary conditions is already creeping through into our food chain. As with bovine TB, the EFRA Committee’s reports note that a key part of this problem is a lack of strategic resourcing by DEFRA, such as DEFRA currently funding only 20% of the Dover port authority’s operational coverage, which is only made worse by poor data collection and sharing at present.

All of that is against the worrying backdrop of the worldwide biosecurity context, with foot and mouth disease outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia; African swine fever spreading across the European continent; and avian influenza, bluetongue virus and, as we are discussing today, bovine TB very much with us in the United Kingdom. Those are critical and grave threats, and we cannot afford any complacency by any Government of any political colour, so I urge the Government to carry on really focusing on biosecurity. I shudder to think of the consequences if this situation is not improved as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing about the biosecurity situation in her response.

We have heard about vaccination of cattle today, and another vital tool in the toolbox is vaccination of cattle against TB. At present, cattle are starting to be vaccinated with the cattle BCG vaccine, which is based on the human BCG vaccine—a weakened strain, which does not cause disease. However, the BCG does not give 100% protection against the disease. On its own, that particular tool is not the silver bullet; it needs to be used in combination. As Godfray states, the development of a successful BCG/DIVA product is still not there and still not guaranteed, so we need to make sure that it is scaled up and rolled out at pace. Therefore, cattle vaccination should not be considered as the end result, but as complimentary to a comprehensive testing and surveillance programme.

It is also important to highlight efforts to vaccinate the wild badger population. Practically that is, as one can imagine, a much more difficult job than vaccinating cattle. As Godfray states, the vaccination of badgers can help, but it may take over a decade based on current approaches. The Government launched a national badger population survey in February, and further surveying is scheduled to resume later this year to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify when the results of those surveys will be published.

The last Government supported efforts to control the spread of the disease, and a new version of the ibTB mapping tool was launched, which is enabling farmers to access information on TB-free farms and facilitate safer trading.

Unfortunately, this year’s update of the original Godfray review has concluded that

“there is only a small chance of meeting the target without a step change in the urgency with which the issue is treated and the resources devoted to eradication.”

Sadly, we again are being warned that a lack of resourcing when it comes to animal welfare is an obstacle to doing what we need to do. That must change.

Moving forward, strategies to eradicate the disease must focus on vaccination. However, until that can be done at the speed and scale required, other control methods are still required. That includes the use of culling in the wildlife reservoir population of badgers, which has been shown to be an effective method of controlling the spread of the disease. We have had debate about that today.

Part of ensuring that culling is undertaken as necessary is ensuring that, behind alternative tools such as vaccination, we have the body of evidence necessary to give us the clearest possible picture of their effectiveness, strengths and limitations. The National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association have emphasised the need for this evidence, particularly when it comes to the use of vaccination and its impact on herd incidence. That can not only have benefits in terms of how vaccination could be used as a potential exit strategy or to stop disease spreading into new areas, but could give confidence to farmers that alternatives to badger culling can be effective and motivate those with livestock at risk of bovine TB to take part in Government measures, particularly in the light of the fact that, as we have discussed today, the Government have announced that they intend to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament.

When it comes to information collection and sharing, both the Godfray review and the National Audit Office have stressed the disappointing progress made on the livestock information transformation programme, which drives livestock traceability. The Godfray review’s updated publication this year found that speeding up progress on that programme is essential to eradicating bovine TB by 2038. The National Farmers Union notes that this is a huge opportunity for the industry to unlock a wealth of additional information; I urge the Government to look at how the benefits of that can be unlocked as soon as possible in the essential task of data gathering.

The Labour Government’s ending of the badger cull seems a high-stakes gamble and does not appear to follow all the science or the evidence. For example, the study by Downs et al. published in 2019 found that after four years of culling, reductions in TB incidence rates in cattle herds were 66% in Gloucestershire and 37% in Somerset, relative to comparison areas. In 2024, Birch et al. found that, in a study from 2013 to 2020, the herd incidence rate of TB decreased by 56% up to the fourth year of badger control policy interventions.

[Andrew George]

I am repeating myself, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that those research papers were questioned heavily as, during the period over which the statistics were gathered, they were not based on the same baseline nor on the same system as cattle testing at that time. Therefore, they did not compare like with like. That was very heavily questioned at the time, and it was never satisfactorily resolved.

[Dr Hudson]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Birch et al. study of 2024 looks at that issue in depth. Indeed, if we look at some of those scientific studies criticising the badger cull, the Government’s DEFRA chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer queried the statistical methodology of those. We can have a long debate about the methodology of those papers, but Godfray himself, and the expert panel reconvened by the new Government, looked at a lot of the evidence, which shows that there is still a role in some way for badger control. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will carry on.

The previous Government were clear that they did not want or intend to continue badger control indefinitely. No one wants to keep going with it forever. However, until all the tools in the toolbox—we have heard today about many of those tools, and they are not all there yet—are fully developed and up to speed, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, sadly, badger control needs to be kept in that toolbox. I know that will disappoint many stakeholders watching this debate and many people in the Public Gallery, but we must try to be dispassionate and follow the science. One of the key take-homes from the Godfray review was that the polarisation of the role of the wildlife reservoir and the badger in this debate, and the fact that it has split people into one view or the other, has made it very difficult for everyone to analyse the exact risk and the best control mechanism.

The British Veterinary Association states that when badger culling is deployed, it

“should be deployed in a targeted, effective and humane manner only where cull design is based on the best available evidence and mitigates against the ‘perturbation effect’”,

which we have heard a little about today.

The National Farmers Union states that to tackle the disease effectively and combat transmission through all routes we must retain access to all tools, and their implementation must be driven by science and evidence.

More widely, on rural issues, this Labour Government have already shown us that sometimes they do not follow the evidence or data in policy decisions for farming and rural communities. Just look at their retrograde approach to taxation on farms, ignoring the devastation that the family farm tax will have on the very livelihood and survival of rural businesses, and choosing to add to the pressures on farmers’ pockets and wellbeing, rather than providing them with the support they need. I too urge the Government to reverse the policy as a matter of urgency—something we have heard from across the House—to give clarity to farmers and to abolish the family farm tax.

I hope the Government do not make another error by losing the progress made since 2014 in the control of bovine TB. If we take a quick decision without looking at all the science and the evidence, we might take backwards steps that will have significant impacts on our rural communities. At present, we need all the tools to remain in the bovine TB control toolbox: biosecurity measures, better diagnostic testing, cattle vaccination, badger vaccination, roll-out of the DIVA test and targeted control of the wildlife reservoir.

To conclude, I reiterate that His Majesty’s official Opposition believe that targeted, humane and evidence-based badger control should remain a measure—not forever, but so long as the evidence says that it needs to stay in place. It is an available part of the toolbox, alongside others, to control the spread of the devastating disease that is bovine TB. The previous Government set out their ambition to eradicate the disease by 2038, and it is important to highlight that the current Government have not changed that target year. We should follow the science, the evidence and the data, for the sake of our cattle sector, our rural communities and, indeed, rural mental health.

18:07

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your watchful eye in Westminster Hall, Mr Stuart, on this first evening back. I begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling in this debate, including from 170 of my constituents in Wallasey and the 102,000-odd members of the public who signed the petition. For many, the idea of culling badgers—a protected species—is deeply upsetting and even unconscionable, and I understand and respect that view.

As many have said, this is a totemic and polarising issue. The fact is that over successive years, hundreds of thousands of badgers have been culled indiscriminately across a vast area, stretching from Cornwall to Cheshire and across to the midlands. For valid reasons, many, including the Labour manifesto, have described the policy as ineffective.

I will be clear from the outset that this Government are committed to ending the badger cull. We stand by that commitment, and I say again that the badger cull is ending. We have already taken decisive steps to bring the cull to its closure.

Bovine TB has a devastating impact on our farming community, as we have heard in great detail from all parts of the House. It has cost the lives of more than 274,000 cattle, compulsorily slaughtered in England because of the disease. It costs the taxpayer over £100 million a year, and it costs farmers dearly in lost income and extra business costs. We have heard about the stress and mental health problems that waiting for those constant tests have subjected many families to. Far too many farmers have suffered profound stress and hardship as a result. They live with the constant anxiety of regular testing, the financial strain of movement restrictions and the heartbreak of losing affected animals, often reared with care and pride over generations.

In the year up until June 2025, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England for bovine TB control. That is fewer than the year before—but that is little consolation for any farmer who has had to watch one of their animals being taken away. Since 2013, more than 247,000 badgers have been culled under licence. That is a very large figure, and a hard figure to hear. Our challenge is to strike the right balance: tackling bovine TB with urgency while protecting our wildlife. The Government are committed to moving decisively towards a future free from this devastating disease, and to doing so in a way that is effective and that earns the trust of the communities most affected.

The petition calls for an immediate end to the badger cull and a stronger focus on cattle-based measures. I want to respond to that clearly, because I understand, and we have heard in this debate, how deeply people care about the issue. This debate comes at an important moment—perhaps slightly too early, I must say, but the petitioners are the petitioners, and we get the debates when we get them—since we are refreshing the bovine TB eradication strategy introduced by our predecessors in 2014. It was they who instigated this cull.

A new strategy is being co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists, conservationists and the Government, all of whom will have a voice, in an attempt to deal with some of the polarisation in the debate. It will be informed by independent evidence in the review led by Professor Sir Charles Godfray. The update to that review, which was published on 4 September, has been referred to on several occasions.

On the role of badgers, the petition argues that wildlife are being scapegoated. I understand the use of that word, but we must be clear that transmission runs both ways within species and between cattle and badgers, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by using modern technology such as whole-genome sequencing. We must have an honest debate and, to have an effective policy, we must recognise the reality that TB infections go both ways, from one species to another and back again. The Government’s direction of travel, though, is clear: we are investing in non-lethal interventions—non-lethal for badgers, that is—and cattle-focused measures, including both cattle and badger vaccinations, to end the badger cull by the end of the Parliament.

The most sustainable way to protect farms and wildlife is by investing in measures to reduce infection in both species, such as badger and cattle vaccination. Sir Charles Godfray’s evidence review concluded that the overall package of interventions—cattle testing, movement controls and on-farm biosecurity alongside the badger cull policy—has contributed to reducing bovine TB in cattle, but it also concluded that it is not statistically possible to isolate the impact of each individual measure. He said that it was possible to control bovine TB effectively both with a badger cull and without one, and therefore we must see how to move forward in the best possible way, given the manifesto commitment on which we were elected last year.

The petitioners, and many voices in the debate, argue that badger culling should stop immediately. They say that it lacks solid scientific evidence, it has gone on too long and it takes the focus away from tackling bovine TB in cattle. But, however much one might sympathise with those views, it is not really about choosing between badgers and cattle. The real question is how to take those facts seriously and decide the best way to keep bearing down on bovine TB until we can finally get rid of it.

I say again that the badger cull is ending. The 2025 season is nearly over, and this is the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high-risk and edge areas. To provide a little more information about that, at the height of the badger cull there were 73 licences to cull badgers operating up and down the country, and in this season there are 21. By the end of this season only one licensed cull will remain. It will continue until the end of the season and then there will be an analysis to see how effective it has been scientifically. A decision will then be made about whether to continue with that final licence.

[Andrew George]

Is that licence in a low-risk area?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes. It is to deal with a TB hotspot that appeared. By the end of this season there will be no cull licences in any high-intensity or edge area.

Everybody has said in their own particular way that we all agree that we have to reduce the incidence of and eradicate bovine TB, and we also want to stop killing badgers, so we have to do more on cattle, which is exactly what the Government wish to do. Cattle measures are the foundation of our eradication programme. That means there should be regular testing, both routine and targeted, using the highly specific skin test, supplemented where appropriate by the highly sensitive interferon-gamma test. We also have robust rules on cattle movements and slaughterhouse surveillance, and tools like the ibTB map to help farmers to make risk-based and informed decisions when they buy or sell stock.

But more can be done to strengthen our cattle testing programme. The DEFRA-funded TB advisory service and the TB hub are the go-to advisers in supporting farmers to implement practical biosecurity measures. Simple things such as raising water troughs, securing feed stores and keeping wildlife out of buildings are simple, low-cost steps that make a real difference. Yet I recognise the Godfray panel’s view that more must be done to strengthen biosecurity across the board, so we will focus on what that might look like.

One of the most exciting developments in a generation is cattle vaccination. The cattle BCG vaccine, used alongside a new test that can tell the difference between vaccinated cattle among infected animals—the so-called DIVA skin test—is being trialled on farms as we speak. If marketing authorisations are granted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, we could start using those tools in the next few years. These things are annoyingly slow, but I will see whether there is any way to ensure a speedier way to get those things used. Vaccination is clearly never going to take off if one cannot tell the difference between an infected or vaccinated animal, so it is clear that we have to make progress on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful for all that my hon. Friend has said, but I am reminded of what Kate Bingham said when she talked about the scaling down and scaling up of our capability in responding to the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend look at the methodology so that we are able to respond not only to this particular crisis but, as the shadow Minister highlighted, to the future risks that farmers face?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am well aware of the increased risk of disease and issues suddenly emerging, having lived through the last outbreak of foot and mouth in this country, albeit not quite in the way that the shadow Minister did. It can be catastrophic, so it is very important to think about how we can be ready to scale up surveillance very quickly.

In her contribution my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the battle against covid that we all lived through a few years ago and compared it with this battle. Even though the repayment method will be long, money was no object then; in this instance I am afraid that finances and money have to be an object. We have to try to get our surveillance and ability to respond quickly in the best place we can within the resources we have, so there is more of a constraint than there might have been in some of the examples that my hon. Friend used.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful remarks. She says that the DIVA test is currently being tested, which is wonderful, but does she accept that, given it was possible to produce a vaccine within a relatively short time in the pandemic—I appreciate that civil servants seem to have a rather stretchy temporal language—a few years is not good enough? Can she be more specific, given that this is costing the country millions of pounds every year?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Well, I have been in the job a month—I will be more specific when I have had more time to chase the questions I want to ask the appropriate people. However, I will make the observation that covid was a virus, and we are not dealing with a virus in this instance. This disease is difficult to find, pursue and detect because it has evolved to evade detection, which is what these kinds of things tend to do.

It is not simple and easy. One has to be careful to ensure that things are safe and not try to chivvy along medical regulators just so that I can make a convenient announcement to Parliament. We need to know that things are safe and effective. As various people have said, if we are to unleash them and they are to be used with the Government’s scientific imprimatur, we had better be right about it; otherwise, we will get into a situation where we cannot tell whether cattle are vaccinated or infected. Once we are in that situation, we cannot ever come back from it. This has to be done in a precautionary way. I am probably as frustrated as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) by the speed at which it is going, but it will take as long as it has to, with chivvying at an appropriate level.

To end the badger cull responsibly we must continue to tackle TB in wildlife using tools that are backed by science. Badger vaccination is not about ignoring the role that badgers play in spreading TB, and it is certainly not about blaming wildlife; it is about reducing infection within badger populations in an area where they pose a risk to cattle without resorting to culling a protected species. That has to be an aim we wish to pursue. I am told that vaccinating 30% of a badger population is effective at achieving the goals we wish to achieve.

Multiple studies show that vaccination is an effective way of controlling the disease in badgers, which is why we are scaling up at pace. In 2024, more than 4,000 badgers were vaccinated. That capability will expand further with the introduction of a new badger-vaccination field force next year, which will see us partnering with industry to deliver more vaccination areas. Alongside that, a new national wildlife TB surveillance programme and an updated badger population survey are being put in place to ensure that the field force and other measures are deployed where they will make the greatest difference.

When bovine TB hits a farm, it is not just an entry on a spreadsheet or a data point in national statistics; it means months of restrictions, mental strain and real financial jeopardy. National numbers matter, but people live this day after day in the affected areas, which is why our strategy must be practical on the ground, understandable at the kitchen table and, above all, effective. It is also why we are co-designing it with those who face the devastating disease every day, ensuring that their experience and insight shape the solutions we put in place.

As I speak, a steering group drawn from the existing bovine TB partnership for England is overseeing several expert working groups involving over 100 individuals. These groups are focused on governance and resourcing, cattle surveillance and breakdown testing, accelerating cattle vaccination, trade and movement, and badgers and other wildlife, as well as how to respond to changing epidemiology. The plan is to present a new strategy next year. In doing so, we will deliver a step change that reflects the best available evidence, the lived experience of those affected and a shared commitment for England to be free of bovine TB by 2038.

We will consolidate and strengthen cattle-focused controls, testing, movement, biosecurity and advisory support. We will continue to advance the cattle-vaccination programme at pace—and we will see quite what that means. People with greater minds than mine have talked about the relativity of time, but I want it to happen as quickly as is safely possible. That way, when authorisations are in place, we can begin the roll-out. We are preparing for deployment so that we can go quickly as soon as we get the go ahead.

We will scale up badger vaccinations across large, contiguous areas, supported by enhanced wildlife-TB surveillance. This is how we will end the badger cull: by building the capabilities and viable alternatives that make culling less necessary. We should not underestimate the challenge, though. The nature of the disease means the strategy must remain flexible, adapting to the disease picture as that too evolves.

The petitioners who made this debate happen want a cattle-centred approach, farmers want certainty, fairness and access to all the tools that work on their farms, and scientists want us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The strategy refresh is our chance to knit those threads into a durable plan to ensure that we achieve bovine TB-free status in England by 2038.

The Government will end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. We will replace it—safely and credibly—with vaccination, strengthened surveillance, better biosecurity and, crucially, we hope, a cattle vaccine and a DIVA test that can build resilience into the herds. That is how we will reduce disease, costs and stress, protect a much-loved native species and restore hope to the farming families who have lived for too long under the shadow of bovine TB.

18:27

[Irene Campbell]

I thank all Members and the Minister for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate on a very important issue. We have heard about the importance of biosecurity, testing regimes and finding an effective vaccine, about the effect on farmers financially and emotionally, and about differing scientific views. For me, the main message is that we need to move as quickly as we can, because over the years so many innocent animals have needlessly lost their lives because of bovine tuberculosis.

I am obviously looking forward to an end to the badger cull, and I hope it comes sooner rather than later. The UK is often referred to as a world leader in animal welfare, and the new Labour Government have an opportunity to strengthen our standing. I look forward to the release of the animal welfare strategy and the implementation of the bovine tuberculosis strategy that will end the cull.

I thank Robert Pownall, the creator of the petition, and his colleague Tom Langton at Protect the Wild, for meeting with me. I congratulate them on gathering more than 102,000 signatures. I also thank Sir Charles Godfray, the director of the Oxford Martin School; Ellie Ward at Wildlife and Countryside Link; and Neeve McGinty, Tori Morgan and Marianne Combe at the National Farmers Union for meeting me in preparation for this debate. Finally, I thank the Petitions Committee staff for their invaluable hard work and the support they gave me in preparing for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

18:29

Sitting adjourned.