Bovine TB and Badger Control

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Secretary Paterson.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his post and thank him for advance sight of his statement.

Another day, another U-turn, announced first to the “Today” programme and now to Parliament. Labour has warned the Government for two years that the badger cull was bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. In addition, the Government’s handling of the cull has been incompetent and shambolic. It is right that it has been delayed, but we were not alone. Lord Professor John Krebs, the eminent scientist who first suggested that the culling of badgers be tried to tackle bovine TB, described it as a “crazy scheme”. The Government’s own chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, declined to endorse the policy. The free shooting of badgers in some big society badger cull was always a terrible idea. It had never been tried, never measured.Professor John Bourne, who led Labour’s badger cull trials, called it an “untested and risky approach”.

The cull would cost farmers more than it saved them, put huge strain on the police and spread bovine TB in the short term as badgers move out of cull areas. It would cost half a million pounds a year to police per area, and all for a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years. Bovine TB is a terrible disease for farmers, their families and their communities, which is why we, when in government—[Interruption.] That is why we ran the cull trials to see whether culling made a difference—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise coming from both sides of the House. Mr Kawczynski, I have had reason to indicate this to you before, but you must calm down. I think that you need to go on an anger management course, man. [Interruption.] Order. Get a grip.

[Mary Creagh]

Bovine TB is a terrible disease, but the Secretary of State’s cull was never going to be a silver bullet. Then, last Thursday, we saw the first signs that the badger cull was shaping up to be another Government disaster. As Ministers went to ground, the Secretary of State’s own press office told “Channel 4 News” that the policy was being scrapped, but an hour later they rang back—it was unscrapped. To have to announce one U-turn may be regarded as misfortune, but two U-turns in one afternoon looks like carelessness, even for a Government as weak and incompetent as this one.

What was the reason for the wobble? I had asked some parliamentary questions, and Ministers’ answers revealed some awkward facts. My first basic question was how many badgers there were in each cull area. The answer was that the Government

“have yet to issue definitive target figures for the two areas”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 296W.]

The cull is predicated on killing at least 70% of badgers in an area. How could it proceed when Ministers did not know how many animals there were? We had said all along that the cull was a shot in the dark, and here was the proof. It was that admission, two days before the cull was due to start, that meant DEFRA was wide open to a judicial review for being in breach of the law. The Government’s own best estimate of badger numbers was far higher than previously estimated, making both culls more expensive than forecast. That would mean more expense for farmers and increasing the contingency fund, the bond that farmers are required to lodge with Natural England. Why did Ministers not ask how many badgers farmers needed to kill before this whole fiasco started?

What sort of announcement is the Minister making today? Is it like the forests U-turn, when they pulled the plug and then set up an independent panel to kick it into the long grass forever, leaving just enough cover to save the Prime Minister face; or is it like the infamous Health and Social Care Bill, when the Prime Minister pressed the stop button, waited for things to calm down and then carried on regardless? Is this delay a proper U-turn or a pretend U-turn? I think that the country deserves to be told.

We welcome the tougher measures on biosecurity that the Secretary of State announced last Friday. He says the cull will start again next summer. He has blamed the weather and the police, yet his own colleague the Home Secretary said that the cull must not go ahead during the Olympics and Paralympics. What happens if the weather is bad next year? What estimate has he made of the impact on the tourism industry of a cull next June? Does he expect MPs and the public to believe him when he says that the cull will happen next summer? If it does not take place, is there not a risk that his Department will be pursued for costs by farmers left out of pocket as a result of his incompetence? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister yanked him back from his festival of fromage and fizz in Paris last night and told him it was game over? Who exactly is in charge?

After months of agonising, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money having been spent on consultations, counting badgers, training marksmen and issuing licences, and after thousands have been spent by farmers setting up companies, we have had another U-turn from this incompetent Government. They have spent two years puffing life into a policy that should never have left the ministerial red box. After just six weeks in his post, the Secretary of State has discovered that DEFRA is filled with elephant traps for the unwary. With forests, circus animals and now the badger cull, he has completed a hat trick unmatched by any other Department.

Labour has always said that the badger cull was bad for taxpayers, bad for farmers, and bad for wildlife. This Government are out of touch with the nation. This cull should have been stopped months ago. Today we have the right decision for all the wrong reasons. The cull has been stopped because of the Government’s endemic incompetence. They should have listened to the scientists, the charities and Labour Members, and made policy based on the evidence instead of twisting the evidence to fit their policy. Once again, Ministers present the House with a disaster entirely of their own making. Once again, it is farmers and taxpayers who are left counting the cost.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words in welcoming me to my place, but it was pretty thin stuff, wasn’t it, Mr Speaker?

Let us start with Professor Lord Krebs, whom the hon. Lady quoted. He confirmed the policy when he said in April last year at a meeting of independent scientific experts:

“The science base generated from the…Randomised Badger Culling Trial shows that proactive badger culling as conducted in the trial resulted in an overall beneficial effect compared with ‘survey only’ (no cull) areas on reducing new confirmed cattle herd breakdowns which is still in evidence 5½ years after the final annual proactive cull.”

The hon. Lady then touched on the comments of the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, but failed to say that his recent quote in full is this:

“The proposed pilot culls differ from the RBCT in a number of ways. Additional biosecurity aimed at reducing perturbation effects, any predictions as to the efficacy of the culls will be accompanied by uncertainties. However, if the results were similar to those of the RBCT we might expect a 12 to 16% reduction in bovine TB over an area of 150 km sq after nine years relative to a similar unculled area. It will be important to monitor the results and to subject them to rigorous statistical analysis to assess humaneness, safety and efficacy.”

That is exactly what the pilots were for: they were the logical conclusion—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I told Mr Kawczynski that he was making too much noise and he accepted his fate with good grace. Members on the Opposition Front Bench must not yell at the Secretary of State as he is answering questions. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. Let us hear it from Mr Secretary Paterson.

[Mr Paterson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The previous Government took forward the RBCT in a whole series of trials and then stopped and decided to do nothing. They presided over a horrendous increase in this disgusting disease. We have taken the logic of the RBCT and extended it, which means conducting it over a larger area with hard boundaries and a more efficient system of culling. We are wholly conforming to the science and to the advice that we have taken. However, as I explained in my statement, at this late stage of the season, because of the various delays and because of the larger numbers than had previously been planned for, the NFU has come to me requesting a delay. I should like to reassure the hon. Lady that this policy is absolutely intact. We will work with the NFU over the coming months and from next summer we will deliver pilot culls that will show the efficacy of what we are intending to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Jim Paice. [Interruption.] Sir James Paice—I apologise profusely to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Apology accepted, Mr Speaker, with good grace.

This is clearly very disappointing news for everybody, including the farmers, who had planned for and expected our getting to grips with this disease as quickly as possible. May I endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments about these being pilots? We have always recognised that in some areas they differed from the original RBCT measures, and that was the reason for having the two pilots—to see whether those differentiations still produced the same results. The increase in numbers to which he refers is surprising—or the fact that it is a problem is surprising—given that most people who live in these areas should have been well aware, as most country people are, of the massive increase in badgers.

Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that science shows that if the population of any species significantly increases in density, disease spreads more quickly as it is more likely to sustain itself? This increase in the badger population therefore increases the need to carry out the control.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, as this is a hugely significant matter, but if I am to do so, economy from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike would greatly assist.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

In July 2011, Natural England estimated that there would be 3,300 badgers in each 350 sq km cull area, using data from the randomised badger cull trial, yet DEFRA used the figure of only 1,300 badgers for each 350 sq km area. Why did DEFRA get the figures so badly wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I always listen to the Secretary of State with the closest possible interest, but I am afraid that we do not have time on this occasion for a treatise in response to each question. We need pithy replies, if possible.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that we must address the problem of bovine TB. Will he, therefore, this year, while this delay is in place, use the funding that would have been made available for the cull to improve biosecurity in the cowsheds and byres of farmers, and set minimum standards for biosecurity, which the Krebs report said was a very important element in controlling the disease?