Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.