Peatlands

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister about the impacts of climate change on upland peat. As he will know, the report of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, which I happen to chair, reported this year that only 4% of upland deep peat in England is in active, peat-forming good condition. Furthermore, only one-third of upland deep peat has a management plan in place. Will he inform the House what he intends to do about the other two-thirds of upland peat that has no management plan in place to improve its quality?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords—and I should take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for the work he does with the Adaptation Sub-Committee; it is extremely important to us. The peatland code, which was launched in September, provides a basis for business sponsorship of peatland restoration; that is a key plank in what we are doing. We are also undertaking a considerable amount of important and relevant research. Environmental stewardship, which I referred to in my initial Answer, has for many years benefited peatlands, but the new ELMS will be more focused on environmental outcomes and therefore will be more directly beneficial to peatland restoration. The three nature improvement areas that have peatlands are working hard on improving their habitats.

Badgers: Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for bringing forward this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, I have an interest in this topic, having been involved in the debate about badgers and TB in cattle since my 1997 report on the subject, which led to the establishment of the randomised badger culling trials that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to.

As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, the randomised badger culling trials showed that large-scale, persistent culling of badgers—removing a large proportion of the population—had a modest effect in reducing TB in cattle. The best estimate, which is only a rough guide—confirmed recently by Professor Charles Godfray and 10 top expert scientists in a paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society—is that the reduction expected after nine years could be 16%. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial was that it made things worse in the early years, and worse for farmers around the edges of the cull areas.

Nevertheless, the Government decided to go ahead with pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset. It is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of the pilot culls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, it was not to test whether killing badgers controls TB in cattle but to test whether or not it is possible to kill enough badgers by free shooting, as opposed to cage-trapping, and to kill them humanely and safely. This was stated very clearly in a letter to me from the then Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, David Heath, which said that,

“the pilot is not a scientific trial but rather a test of our assumptions about practical areas of uncertainty”,

and that it would,

“give us sufficient information on both the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting to be able to make a judgement on its acceptability as a culling method”.

However, this is not what the current Minister of State or the Secretary of State say. Quoted on the BBC website, George Eustice said that the pilots,

“will make a difference to disease control in the area”.

Likewise, Owen Paterson said that the aim of the pilots was to,

“achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in the area”.

I am confused. Does the Minister agree with David Heath or with George Eustice and Owen Paterson? Are Defra Ministers clear about the purpose of the pilots?

We now know that the pilots have been a complete fiasco. As has been said, there was confusion about the number of badgers in each area, as well as the target proportion to be shot, and the farmers completely failed to meet the target numbers in the allotted time period. Back in October 2012, just before the pilot was due to start, the number of badgers estimated to be in each area went up by a massive 400%. In October 2013, during the cull, the number shot down by 35%.

We know that the Secretary of State accused the badgers of moving the goal posts, but there is another possible interpretation: it might just be that Defra did not have a clue about how many badgers there were in those areas. As has been said, the target of the pilot was to remove more than 70% of the badgers but less than 100%. The 70% target was set because in the randomised badger culling trials this was the proportion that had to be removed to achieve the modest positive benefit to farmers.

Part of the way through the pilots, when it was clear that the target of 70% would be missed, it was magically changed to 53%. Those badgers seem to have moved the goal posts again. Could the Minister please explain to us why the target was changed part of the way through the pilots, and on what scientific basis? Furthermore, why was the maximum proportion to be killed in Gloucestershire lowered from 90% at the start of the pilot to 70% part of the way through? Does the Minister agree that this change means that any farmer who was efficient enough to meet the initial target would have ended up breaking the law by the end of the pilot?

I was quoted some months ago in the press as saying that the pilot cull was a “crazy scheme”. It seems to have got even crazier. However—now I come to my key point—as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Defra has established an independent expert panel, chaired by Professor Ranald Munro, which will advise it on the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. I understand that the panel is due to report very soon. If it concludes that controlled shooting is not effective or humane, will Defra abandon its plans to roll out further controlled shooting? I have one further question, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter: in the light of the experience of the pilots, will Defra re-evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of the policy?

I could seek answers to many more puzzling questions about Defra’s plans for shooting badgers to control TB in cattle, but I would be very pleased if the Minister would give direct answers to the questions that I have already posed: what is the purpose of the pilots; why was the 70% target changed; will Defra follow the advice of its independent expert panel; and will it do a new cost/benefit analysis in the light of its experience of the pilots?

In concluding, I emphasise that the focus on killing badgers is misplaced. We all agree that TB is a dreadful problem for farmers, particularly in the south-west, and that something has to be done to bring it under control. However, there is no point in doing something if it is the wrong thing. The sad fact is that there are more effective and cheaper ways of controlling TB in cattle. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the idea of vaccination. However, in the short term, before vaccines became effective, putting in place rigorous measures to prevent transmission of the disease between badgers and cattle, and among cattle, would be a more effective policy in achieving a 60% reduction than trying to kill badgers. If Defra were to turn its attention to this solution, farmers, scientists and conservationists would all be relieved, and badgers would be able to take a rest from their task of moving the goal posts.

The NFU has told me that in 22 years, 25% of cattle herds in Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire have never had TB. There may be a clue in trying to understand why those 25% have never had TB. Surely that could give us an indication of what those farms are doing differently that helps to prevent their cattle from getting the disease. That would be a more fruitful approach than the pointless exercise of trying to kill badgers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and what I thought was the most interesting contribution to this debate so far, with great respect to other noble Lords who have spoken. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, published his report 16 years ago and now stands up and says that actually 75% of the farms in the south-west of England have got problems with TB indicates something that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, brought out so clearly.

I declare an interest as a minority partner in a small farm which has been affected, where we have had to face the problems of very inadequate science. The tests produce false positives or false negatives, and perfectly good cattle have gone for slaughter, having given the impression that they had TB when they did not. This is a closed herd and I am in absolutely no doubt that the TB comes from the badgers and that the badgers have led to the increase in the problems with TB. Only on Thursday our neighbour had a reactor and that is a frequent event. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, brought out well the appalling pressure that is on so many farming communities and the number of people who are going out of dairy, some for economic reasons, but others because the problems of TB are so great for them.

I declare another interest, because the first culling area is in my old constituency of Bridgwater and West Somerset. I recall that it was not so bad in west Somerset for a time and then there was an exercise in Devon, which had a particular problem with TB. There was trapping of badgers and testing them for TB, and some very misguided animal rights activists got hold of the trapped badgers and transported them to west Somerset and released them there. I am in no doubt that that significantly contributed to the serious aggravation that they now face.

The other thing is that there is certainly no shortage of badgers. The problem that my noble friend the Minister has to face is how well we can actually count the badger population, but there is absolutely no doubt in my own observation of the number of setts, that there has been a significant explosion. I have to say, as the Minister who took through the Wildlife and Countryside Act back in the early 1980s, that when one sees how the populations of animals that have no natural predator and which are protected have exploded, to the detriment of a lot of other wildlife species, it is necessary to find some way of controlling numbers in these areas.

There is one point about vaccination that did not come out. I was told—I do not know if this is right—that there has to be annual vaccination. If true, that just adds to the extraordinary difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, suggested that the solution was vaccination. I think he will concede, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the comments he made from his own professional background, that the idea that vaccination is the solution to the problem seems highly unlikely. Obviously we await the findings of this report with great interest—I as much as anybody, because of west Somerset.

If I might dare to presume to advise my noble friend who will be answering this debate, I would suggest that he does not answer any of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at this stage. He should give no guarantees or undertakings from the ministerial Bench at this stage, when he has not even seen the report and what possibilities and qualifications there may be in it. It would be much fairer not to answer those questions at this stage, but to say that the report will be looked at absolutely objectively, that it is a very important report and everybody will need to study it. He should not be asked pre-emptively for assurances of one sort and another in advance. I hope the noble Lord does not think that that is an aggressive remark—I understand his concern—but that seems to me to be the fair answer for the Minister to give.

This is an issue from which nobody can take any pleasure. There are a lot of people around the country listening to discussion of these issues who are desperate. There has, so far, been no successful progress on dealing with this appalling problem that has caused such tragedy, including suicides and family break-ups of every kind. At this stage we should try not to score points, but to see how we can work together to find a better way forward.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for those comments. I just want to emphasise that Defra has set up an independent expert panel, which will advise on the safety, humaneness and efficacy of controlled shooting. My question to the Minister is: if the expert panel finds that these conditions have not been met and that free shooting is not effective and not humane, will Defra continue with the policy? It is not a matter of prejudging the outcome of the panel’s results but of asking a conditional question. If the answer is, “We would go ahead even if the panel says that free shooting is not effective and not humane”, that is interesting to know. It is surely something that Defra must have thought about ahead of time.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

With great respect, if the noble Lord reads in Hansard what he said the first time around, he will find that what he was asking for was considerably more direct. He was asking for guarantees of certain specific answers. The Minister may disregard what I said but my advice would be not to answer that.

Badgers

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I will disagree on the science. Ultimately, of course, we want to be able to use vaccination both for cattle and for badgers, and we are investing in this option through extensive research and development. However, there are practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which the noble Lord refers to as being used in Wales and which right now is the only available option. The difficulties involved include the need for each badger to be trapped and the fact that vaccination does not appear to cure already infected badgers, along with the cost and the fact that it has to be repeated every year.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I have spoken in your Lordships’ House before about the scientific evidence for the efficacy of culling as a way to control TB in badgers, and I do not wish to repeat myself. However, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, how will the success or failure of these two pilots be judged? The independent panel will make the judgment, but what will success look like? Secondly, is it not right that the Government should take the opportunity between now and next summer, when the cull is proposed to resume, to review all the options for controlling TB in badgers, bearing in mind that not even the most optimistic proponent of culling would consider it a credible strategy for the eradication of this dreadful disease?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as always, I respect the noble Lord’s position. An independent panel of experts will oversee the monitoring and evaluation of the two pilots for the badger control policy to test our assumptions, as I said, about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. The expert panel will play an important role in overseeing the design of the data collection and their analysis, and in providing additional advice on interpretation of the data. It will be on the basis of both the pilots and the panel’s report that Ministers will take a decision on whether the granting of culling licences should be authorised in areas besides the pilot areas, and whether the badger control policy should continue to include controlled shooting as a culling method. On the noble Lord’s second point, we are constantly reviewing the options. As I said earlier, we are working hard on a vaccination, and there are a number of other measures in progress. In a general sense, we are doing as the noble Lord suggests.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

I remind noble Lords that ministerial Statements are made for the information of the House. Although brief comments and questions from all quarters are allowed, Statements should not be the occasion for an immediate debate. I am acutely aware that many noble Lords wish to get in. It would therefore be courteous if noble Lords could be as brief as possible, to enable their noble colleagues to get in as well.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, as has been said, bovine TB is a serious problem, and it deserves serious science to underpin policy. I do not want to take up too much time, but I hope that your Lordships will forgive me as an individual who has been involved in this over the past 15 years and, as has been said, instigated the randomised badger culling trial and took part in the review of the evidence with Sir Bob Watson last year. It is worth briefly repeating the facts: the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning; it is just that there is 16% less than there would have been without a cull. The number is not the 30% that the NFU quoted; that is misleading—a dishonest filleting of the data. The other thing that the experts conclude is that culling makes the situation worse at the beginning so it will take a long time to emerge into this Nirvana of a 16% reduction, and 84% of the problem is still there.

That is just the background. I turn to questions that I hope the Minister will answer. Last Friday we were told by the Minister of State for Food and Farming that between 500 and 800 badgers would be culled in each of the two areas. The number, thanks to rapid badger reproduction over the weekend, is now 5,530 over the two areas—a fourfold increase. I am impressed. What this underlines is that if the policy is to cull at least 70% of the badgers, we have to know what the starting number is. This variation from just over 1,000 to more than 5,000 in the space of a few days underlines how difficult it is for us to have confidence that the Government will be able to instruct the farmers to cull 70% if they do not know the starting numbers. So my first question to the Minister is: how will he assure us that these numbers are accurate?

If we ask why the NFU has backed out, it is because it was due to pay those who were going to shoot the badgers on a per-badger basis. The NFU calculated it on the basis of shooting 1,300 badgers. Suddenly it is told, “It’s 5,500 badgers”. The farmers thought it was worth doing—but not that much. They have done their own cost-benefit calculation and say that it is not worth the candle. So my second question to the Minister is: in next year’s cull, who is going to pay? Are the farmers going to stump up on a per-badger basis to shoot 5,500 badgers or are we, the taxpayer, going to pay?

Finally and briefly, we have a pause and time to rethink. I urge the Minister to gather together scientific experts and rethink the Government’s strategy altogether, starting from square one.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Krebs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scientific evidence they have used in developing their proposals for controlling bovine tuberculosis by culling badgers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, evidence of the effect of badger culling on bovine TB incidence rates comes principally from the randomised badger culling trial. The scientific evidence from the trial suggests that proactive badger culling, done on a sufficient geographical scale in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way and over a sustained period of time of at least four years, will reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high-incidence areas. It is the Government’s judgment that these results can at least be replicated by a farmer-led cull using controlled shooting. The two pilots will test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of this method.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should declare an interest as the instigator of the randomised badger-culling trial some years ago. I agree with the Minister that sustained, long-term culling could reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by about 16 per cent, but can he help me with two questions which are puzzling me concerning the Secretary of State’s announcement last week in another place? First, this pilot involves two areas. As a scientist, I know of no statistical technique for analysing the results from a trial involving just two areas, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point. Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to a wider rollout depending on the results of the pilot. Does that mean that the Government would consider rolling out this shooting policy to the 39,000 square kilometres of the English countryside affected by bovine TB, with the implication that one would end up shooting between a quarter and a third of the UK’s badger population?

Higher Education White Paper

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I simply do not accept those concerns, as was made clear in the debate we had some six months ago when we debated the original announcement about student loans. It will be up to the universities to attract the right students. Those students will bring the money with them that will pay for the courses.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Statement. It will obviously take time to absorb the details. I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and say that from the perspective of those of us in the higher education sector the Government’s approach seems slightly schizophrenic. On the one hand we hear about creating a market, liberalising the university sector and deregulating, but on the other hand we hear of increasing constraints imposed on us in reporting, access and the level of fee that we can charge. As I said, there is a slightly schizophrenic approach.

I have a particular question to ask the Minister. If, as he has indicated, the aim is to place the student in the driving seat to create a market where student choice and wishes determine the outcome, that leaves open the question of where the university sector will end up. We know from the report from the Royal Society a couple of years ago that this country suffers from a serious shortage of students educated in engineering, the natural sciences and mathematics. Do the Government have a view on what proportion of students should study STEM subjects? If so, why are they leaving it to the market and student choice? Students may well choose to study subjects that do not require such a rigorous entry as mathematics, physics, chemistry and engineering, and universities may well choose to teach subjects that are cheaper to lay on. Do the Government have any view about the provision for STEM graduates, or is that simply a matter for the market?

[Lord Henley]

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, and obviously much in this White Paper needs to be discussed. After all, it offers up the idea of consultation on a number of subjects, which is a matter that we will take on board. He then suggested that we had a slightly schizophrenic approach. I remember being castigated on many occasions by my late noble kinsman Lord Russell on the question of academic freedom and attacks that the previous Conservative Government were allegedly making on institutions. We are very anxious, as we make clear in the Statement, to preserve academic freedom and to leave the decision-making to universities. Obviously, when public money is involved—and considerable amounts are involved—it is right that we should make our views known.

The noble Lord then talked about the STEM subjects. He gave an example of the shortage of engineers and asked what our approach should be. We have to be very wary of government setting down specific targets for this or that number of engineers. The noble Lord will remember that the former Soviet Union produced a very large number of engineers, no doubt at the sort of central direction that some noble Lords opposite might like—but look where it got them. I seem to remember the expression, “Upper Volta with rockets”. That is not a route that we would want to go down. What we are setting out is probably a better approach.

Birds: Farmland Populations

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that there has been a decline: we have figures that show that that is happening. It is difficult to take figures from one year to the next, but over the period there has been a steady decline. The precise causes of that decline are another matter, but my noble friend is right to point out that predation is obviously one among many causes. The important thing is that all those involved in the management and ownership of land do what they can by involving themselves in these schemes and in terms of predator control and general management to do their best to improve the environment for farmland birds.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that a considerable body of the research on this topic has been carried out by my students at the University of Oxford. Does the Minister agree with the results of a study from the University of Leeds by Professor Benton that was published last year, which showed that organic farming is not more beneficial to wildlife, including bird populations, contrary to the claims of many in the organic industry?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have not seen that study, but I will certainly take the opportunity to look at it and respond to noble Lord in due course. The important thing, as I made clear in my Answer to my noble friend, is that we encourage as many people as possible to do many different things under the schemes to create as much diversity as possible. In the end, that is bound to improve the habitat of birds.

Universities: Alternative Medicine

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again I make it clear that it is for the higher education institutions themselves to make these decisions. It would not be right for the Government to interfere.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, in choosing to fund these courses in universities, will HEFCE treat them as science, technology, engineering and medicine courses, in which case they will receive a higher allocation than if they were not treated as such?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the answer to it but I will certainly make inquiries and write to him. Again, I reiterate the fundamental point that these are matters for HEFCE to decide, not the Government.

Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

I passionately believe that were the Government to do that, students, their families, graduates, universities and the taxpayer would, as a result, have a better outcome but the deficit would still be cut. In turn, the Government would be congratulated on listening, on thinking again and on putting forward proposals which sustain the long-term future of higher education in the UK as a public good, as it is perceived everywhere else in the world.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and as somebody who has spent much of his career teaching undergraduates in this country and in north America. I have to say that I have changed my mind about the view I take on the Government’s proposals. The view you take, I think, depends on where you start from. The vice-chancellors, in their view, have their feet in the coals of the fire and are looking for a way to get them out, and the only way to do that is to support a whopping great hike in student fees. If, however, you stand back and ask some fundamental questions about the justification for the proposals, I believe that you come to quite a different view.

I asked myself three questions. Are the proposals justified and fair? Do they make the funding of universities more sustainable? Do we understand the consequences of this radical change? No doubt noble Lords are on the edge of their seat waiting to hear the answers to those questions. We have heard many of the things that I am going to say already, so I will take a short cut to save anxiety and stress and give the answers in summary form. No, the proposals are not justified and fair. No, they do not make the funding of universities more sustainable. No, we do not understand the consequences. Let me explain briefly why I have come to this view and why I therefore support the Labour amendment to the Motion.

We have already heard, and I do not need to dwell on this, that a university education is partly a public good and partly a private good. Individuals benefit but the nation needs doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists—even civil servants and economists, it is sometimes said. The state should therefore pay part of a university education. I think it is reasonable that students should pay something themselves, so the debate is about how much it is fair to ask them to pay. These proposals represent, as we have already heard, a dramatic shift in responsibility for payment for an education from the public purse to the private purse.

We must not forget, as has been hinted at by other speakers, that the United Kingdom already invests a significantly lower proportion of its wealth in tertiary education than most other countries. The latest OECD figures, published this year, show us at 30 per cent below the OECD average in public investment in tertiary education and at nearly 40 per cent below the EU average. Will the Minister tell us how he can justify cutting public support for universities when we are already spending less as a proportion of our GDP than countries such as Hungary, Mexico, Poland or Brazil? Do not tell us that this is about reducing the budget deficit—it is actually about priorities.

The Minister tells us in his letter that no one should be put off from participating in higher education as a result of the changes. People have already asked where is the evidence to support that assertion. Certainly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes in its report that students from the poorest 30 per cent of families will have more to pay back than they do at present. How do we know that this will not put them off? My conversations with the students I am responsible for suggests that it will.

We are also told—and this point has been raised already—that there are details of access arrangements, some of which are spelt out in the draft letter from the Minister for science and universities to Sir Martin Harris. But normally, when you want to understand the details, you turn to the fine print. I did so, and the print was so fine it was almost non-existent.

My second point was about the sustainability of universities. In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister states that the Government believe that this package offers a more sustainable future for our universities. I have always held the notion that belief should be reserved for matters of faith; no doubt the right reverend Prelates will comment on that. But when it comes to the sustainability of universities, I would prefer something more substantial than belief. We have already heard that in effect this proposal takes money with one hand and gives it back with the other, so the proposed fee increase—if we go to £9,000 a year—would barely exceed, and perhaps only just match, the amount of money that is removed in the cuts elsewhere. Therefore, universities such as my own, Oxford University, will be no better off, even if we charge £9,000 a year, and perhaps even worse off. How does this make the system more sustainable?

Thirdly, and finally, do we understand the consequences of this huge experiment? As we have heard, the proposal turns university education, to a large degree, from a public good into a private benefit. What do we know about the outcome? What do we know about its effect on the balance of students choosing to study different subjects? Do we know that it will encourage social mobility? Do we know what kind of restructuring it will result in in the university sector? I believe that the university sector could benefit from restructuring but I do not think that it is sufficient to leave that to the market. A university education is not like toothpaste or a fizzy drink; the market will not necessarily deliver what the nation needs. That can be delivered only after deliberation and consideration by Government and by Parliament.

As we have heard, universities in the UK are an outstanding success story; in fact, they are one of the very few areas in which we still have world pre-eminence. Let us not conduct a massive experiment and leap into the unknown with this success story without first understanding the outcomes and the possible consequences. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and vote against this proposal.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Krebs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scientific evidence they hold which supports their proposals for control of bovine tuberculosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, scientific evidence indicates that TB in cattle will not be eliminated without addressing transmission from badgers. The evidence used to estimate the impact of badger culling and vaccination on TB incidence in cattle is set out in our consultation document. For culling, much of the evidence comes from the randomised badger-culling trial, which was recommended by the noble Lord in 1997. For vaccination, it comes from laboratory and field studies.

[Lord Krebs]

I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. As he has indicated, I declare an interest as the author of the 1997 report that led to the so-called randomised badger-culling trials, which were set up to test whether culling is an effective way of controlling TB in cattle. I ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree with the estimate of his own officials that, based on the results of the randomised badger-culling trials, long-term intensive culling of badgers would lead to a 16 per cent reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle over nine years? Even this modest reduction, which would leave 84 per cent of the problem unaffected, would be achievable only with highly effective, large-scale, long-term culling. Otherwise, culling will make the problem worse. Secondly, does the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, agree with the policy of culling?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the first question, I accept what the noble Lord has to say, but ongoing monitoring since the end of those trials indicates that the positive impacts on herd breakdowns within the culled areas have lasted for a considerable number of years after the culls have ended and that those areas have seen a reduction of some 28 per cent in the incidence of TB. So there is a considerable reduction. We have never said that culling is the sole answer. We have always made it clear that we believe that other measures will need to be taken and that we need to use every tool in the toolbox. As I made clear to the noble Lord in Written Answers earlier this year, we have consulted both the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, and our own chief scientific adviser within the department.