Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.