Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Debate between Tim Farron and Edward Morello

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

I did not give my hon. Friend any warning whatsoever, so I thank him for his eloquence and for immediate springing to his feet on this issue, which he cares about deeply, as do I. Is it not ludicrous to outlaw the culling of badgers for scientific purposes—to try to reduce the spread of a dangerous disease—yet permit it if developers want it? That seems outrageous and is certainly lacking any kind of scientific underpinning.

Farmers, rural communities and all of us who care about animal welfare, wherever we live, deserve a clear, evidence-based plan from DEFRA that sets out how England will achieve TB-free status by 2038, with milestones, accountability and fair support, including very fair compensation for those on the frontline. The lack of direction since the Godfray review in 2018—under both the Government in power now and the Conservative one that preceded it—has increased and created uncertainty and frustration right across the industry. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling on Government to publish a transparent, science-led evaluation of all disease control measures, including cost-benefit analyses, vaccination data and surveillance outcomes, to ensure that every action taken is effective, humane and sustainable.

I echo some of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). We believe very much that the way forward must be safe, effective and firmly rooted in evidence. Running the risk of attempting to be reasonable on all this—a Liberal Democrat trait—the evidence on the science really is mixed.

To show my own long standing, I remember some time ago the last-but-one Labour DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—who is a good and decent man, I ought to say—at the NFU conference back in 2009. When he was pressed by farmers on why he would not support even a limited form of badger cull, his answer was, “Well, we would, but public opinion would not let us.” It is really important that we make evidence-based decisions. That was maybe very honest of the right hon. Gentleman, but it underpinned what is often the problem with democratic Governments: sometimes we make the wrong decisions because we do not think we will get away with the right ones.

The current DEFRA review, published in August, found that culling may reduce infection quickly in some high-density and high-risk populations. There is a big “but” coming, and it is this: badger vaccination delivers a more consistent reduction in TB prevalence across both the core and surrounding buffer zones, if delivered properly. That is a massive “if”, is it not?

Farmers lack trust in the vaccination plan because they lack trust in this Government and in their posture towards farmers and farming in general. Clearly, vaccination would be the way forward, but we can surely understand why farmers lack trust in a Government that have damaged them through inheritance tax changes—the family farm tax—and botched the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, and opened and shut windows for the likes of stewardship schemes and what have you.

This is not a Government that farmers currently trust, and the difficulty of rolling out a vaccination programme against that lack of trust is massively scaled up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the most important points that is often lost in this debate: the enormous toll that this process takes on our farming community. That toll may be the constant culling or, more accurately, the constant cycle of testing, which is hugely expensive for farmers. Many of the those who signed the petition in West Dorset said, “I would forgo the ability to sell my livestock if it meant I no longer had to keep going through the cost of repeated cycles of testing.” We need to find a solution, whether it be through vaccination or anything else, that preserves the rights of farmers to make a living.

[Tim Farron]

One of the reasons for that suspicion is that farmers know that vaccination is not simple. It might be the most effective way of dealing with the disease if it is rolled out properly, but it is logistically challenging and resource intensive. That is why the Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to invest heavily in improving delivery, to fund more research into how vaccination can be scaled, and to work with conservationists and farmers to make it viable on the ground. It has to go hand in hand with the Government keeping their promises on investment, particularly in the Weybridge HQ of the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

We face threats not just from bovine tuberculosis, but from bluetongue and avian influenza, not to mention, as all those who experienced it at the time will feel, the constant threat of a return of foot and mouth. The failure of this Government and their predecessor to invest properly in the APHA leaves us open and at risk—and again, it leaves farmers deeply suspicious about the Government’s way forward. We also need better surveillance. The DEFRA review that I mentioned a moment ago recommended more systematic monitoring, including the routine testing of found dead badgers, so that we can map TB hotspots accurately and target control measures effectively.

We have talked about non-lethal ways of dealing with the disease. Again, I reiterate that 21,586 cattle were slaughtered last year because of bovine TB. That is not a non-lethal way of dealing with the disease. There was a decline in new cases of around 42% over the previous seven years, but recent data suggests that that welcome reduction may now be plateauing. It is vital that we renew our efforts with a strategy that is both effective and humane.

I am moved by the animal welfare cost of this terrible threat that we have faced for many years, but I am also moved by the human cost, which has been mentioned by others. The farmers who deal with this issue—not just those whose herds get infected, but those who live with the constant threat—are not just financially impacted; they are deeply emotionally impacted, and at the worst possible time. The backdrop to this situation is the anxiety among our farming community—again, because of the threat of the family farm tax, which is coming in on 1 April next year and is driving many to the depths of despair. At the same time, for the first time since 1945, we no longer have a readily available farm payment scheme, which is an absolute outrage. That is a result of the last Government’s botched introduction of the new scheme, but this Government have ramped it up and made things worse.

What do I mean by that? The sustainable farming incentive closed overnight earlier this year in March, and is not likely to be reopened again until maybe this time next year—if they can get the computer system to work properly. We have mid-tier stewardship schemes ending in just a few weeks’ time. The new stewardship schemes open and then shut, and grant schemes open and then shut. Who gets into those schemes? The big guys who have the resources to be there, with a finger on the mouse, ready to bid when that moment arises. The small family farmers—the ones who are best at animal welfare, by the way—are the ones locked out.

Therefore, as we talk about the threat to family farming, to animal welfare and to the mental health of our farmers, we cannot look at bovine tuberculosis on its own. It is against the backdrop of a systematic—whether intended or accidental—annihilation of family farming in this country.

I hear politicians of all political colours saying that British farming is the best in the world; they are right, but rarely do they know why they are right. They are right because of the culture of family farming in this country. Family farming means close attention to detail, to husbandry, to animal welfare, to environmental standards and to food standards. That is why, in tackling bovine tuberculosis, this Government need a plan that wins the trust of farmers and of those who care about animals, but also underpins the future of small family farms, which are essential to our country.

Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Debate between Tim Farron and Edward Morello

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

First of all, I am merely, and happily, an honourable Member, although it is very kind of the hon. Lady to call me “right honourable”. Secondly, we welcome many proposals in the Bill. We have already tabled many amendments in the House of Lords because although we think that the Bill is a step in the right direction, a lot more could be done. I will make more of that in a moment.

It is worth saying, as we are talking about bonuses, that although there was a 54% increase in spills between 2022 and 2023, it did not rain 54% more in 2023 than in 2022; there was no justification for that increase— and yet, the bonuses happen. I have never worked in an industry where bonuses were the norm, but my understanding is that they are paid for success, not as a commiseration for statistically proven and repeated failures.

It is easy to be angry about all this—I am, and maybe it is essential to be so—but it is just as important to be constructive and seek solutions. The depth, seriousness and complexity of this crisis means that the only answers that will work need to be radical and ambitious. Today’s announcement of a water commission, which will consider these things, is welcome, but also a little frustrating. Do we really need to spend the best part of a year stroking our chins and pondering, when what is needed is radical action now? With respect, most of us pretty much predicted the likelihood of a Labour Government two years ago. Did the victory strike them as a surprise? Why were they not ready with a plan to deliver much sooner than this?

I have a similar view, as I have just suggested, about the Water (Special Measures) Bill. It contains many positives, including criminal liability for CEOs responsible for severe environmental failure, but it does not amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed. The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan to be urgently delivered. Indeed, those who voted Liberal Democrat absolutely did vote for that, so we are determined to keep our word and fight for that action.

It seems obvious how regulation could be made better. Water industry regulation is fragmented, with environmental regulation done by the Environment Agency and business regulation done by Ofwat. That just does not work.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To my hon. Friend’s point about the need for a regulator with teeth, West Dorset saw 45,000 hours of sewage released into our rivers and beaches last year. The River Lim last year was declared “ecologically dead”. Does my hon. Friend have a view on whether the regulator should be able to impose fines on the water companies that reflect the damage they are doing to our natural environment?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree, and I will answer that point more fully in a moment.