Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, I can confirm that. The declawing of cats is specifically included, but it covers any mutilation that is for cosmetic purposes only and not for the welfare of the animal.

The restrictions will be subject to appropriate exemptions, which I will touch on shortly. Despite the current rules specifying that a dog or cat cannot be brought into Great Britain under 15 weeks old, we still see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or sometimes even younger. Separating a puppy from its mother too young has implications for the puppy’s health and welfare. Evidence from stakeholders also suggests that puppies imported into Great Britain have frequently been subjected to unacceptable breeding practices abroad and transported in poor conditions.

Raising the minimum age at which a puppy or kitten can be brought into Great Britain to six months old will disrupt the low-welfare movement of under-age puppies into Great Britain. At six months old, both puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately, which will make it easier to enforce the new minimum age and to identify under-age dogs and cats. We hope that the measure will result in significantly fewer low-welfare breeding operations supplying the Great Britain market.

Currently, welfare and transport regulations prevent an animal from being transported during the final 10% of its gestation. That limit is insufficient to tackle the emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dogs, and it is very difficult to identify the stage of pregnancy accurately.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing us the Bill. Does he agree that it is especially dangerous for cats in the last third of their gestation to travel when pregnant?

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early.

The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce.

It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9):

“a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.”

For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity.

Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale.

Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons.

Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.