27 Jan 2004: Column 245W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what liaison takes place between English Nature and her Department in relation to the potential disease status of badgers targeted for removal and relocation. [150580]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answer on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 249W, and on 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1186W.
The Department's Veterinary Endemic Diseases and Zoonoses Division (VEDZD) advise the badger licensing authorities in Defra's Rural Development Service and in English Nature, on potential bovine tuberculosis disease transmission risks associated with badger relocations. No licence is issued without first seeking advice from VEDZD.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of (a) the Independent Science Group and (b) the TB Forum in relation to the control of TB; what requirement there is for her to (i) abide by and (ii) consider the advice of these organisations; and whether these organisations can veto proposals made by her Department. [150543]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB is an advisory NDPB. Its primary objective is to oversee the design and analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Its complete Terms of Reference can be accessed on the Defra website.
The TB Forum aims to bring together experts and organisations with an interest in the Government's policy on bovine TB, to consider new measures which might be taken to control the disease in cattle.
Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirement for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report,
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
column 217W, how many closed herds where disease prevention measures have been judged by her officials to be adequate have suffered TB breakdowns in the last 10 years. [150551]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra does not keep a record of which herds are closed and definitions of a 'closed' herd vary. Defra keeps a record of cattle births and deaths, and their movements from known locations in England, Scotland and Wales. Were a 'closed' herd to be very strictly defined, it would be possible to identify closed herds from records of holdings that only register births and deaths, but have no animal movements on. However, this could be done only at disproportionate cost.
A survey of TB breakdowns (known as 'TB99') is under way and is designed to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 December, Official Report, columns 629–30W, on bovine TB, if she will take steps to compensate herd owners for uninsurable consequential losses arising from the TB infection, where there is clear evidence of no culpability. [150846]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to compensate farmers for consequential losses after a TB breakdown.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
27 Jan 2004: Column 248W
has been made of the relationship between the size of the bumble bee population and the size of the badger population in England. [150942]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are known to excavate and eat the nests of bumble bees and have the potential to exert an influence on the abundance of the bees locally.
The Department has not commissioned any studies to assess the relationship between the abundance of badgers and bumble bees, nor are we aware of any research specifically examining this topic.
27 Jan 2004: Column 254W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the permitted methods are for killing (a) moles and (b) rabbits in their runs and burrows. [150574]
27 Jan 2004: Column 255W
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) Moles
The permitted methods typically used to kill moles in their runs are:
Poisoning using worm baits impregnated with strychnine hydrochloride. This can only be used under a specific authority obtained from Defra.
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide)
Trapping. There are there are two main types in common use, the scissor (pincer) trap or metal half-barrel trap (Duffus).
Certain other methods are permitted (for example shooting and live capture traps), but these are not widely used in the UK. Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing mole problems are given in the Defra leaflet WM03 "Moles" which is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
Guidance on how to apply for permission to use strychnine hydrochloride for mole control is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/mole.htm.
(b) Rabbits
The permitted methods typically used for killing rabbits in their burrows are:
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide or hydrogen cyanide)
Trapping. Traps currently approved by the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 are the Imbra Trap Mark I and Mark II, Juby Trap, Fenn Rabbit Trap Mark I, Fenn Vermin Trap Mark VI (Multi Purpose), Springer Mark VI (Dual Purpose), Victor Conibear 120–2 and the BMI Magnum 116.
Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing rabbit problems are given in the following Defra leaflets WM01, WM16 and WM17 and in Forestry Commission leaflet FCPN002, which are available online at:
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
A full list of approved traps and the relevant conditions of use can be found online at: www.defra. gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/approved-traps. htm
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
26 Jan 2004: Column 1W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total population of badgers in the UK; and in which areas the population is greatest. [148650]
Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from a National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990's.
The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The increasing number of applications received by Defra for licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (up 50 per cent. since 1999) suggest that this trend is continuing.
Badgers densities are highest in the south-west of England, with high densities present throughout southern counties, the west midlands and Wales.
The Department has been funding the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project which is being carried out by the Mammal Society and the British Trust for Ornithology. This is a pilot study intended to develop a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring system. The project is still at the pilot stage—but is intended in the future to provide valuable data on the abundance of mammal species, including badgers. Early findings confirm the pattern of distribution report in the National Badger Survey.
Full details of the badger survey findings are published in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7).
Results from the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project are available online at: http://www.bto.org/survey/special/mammal results.htm
26 Jan 2004: Column 2W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether wild deer are responsible for the spread of TB to cattle. [148655]
Mr. Bradshaw: In Great Britain, there is very limited evidence that deer have been responsible for transmitting tuberculosis to cattle. Wild deer in GB have generally been considered a sentinel or 'spill-over' host of infection in cattle and other wildlife, rather than the cause of it. Whether any wild deer populations (of any species) may constitute a reservoir of TB will depend upon the prevalence of TB, density and ecology of the hosts and the pathology that TB shows in those species.
Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the Southwest of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
26 Jan 2004: Column 3W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in cattle by 2008 if current measures are continued and there is no increase in activity by her Department; and what her projections are for costs of compensation for slaughter of cattle reactors in that period. [148657]
Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected 5 per cent. of cattle herds (5,181 herds) in Great Britain at some point between January and November 2003. At any one point in time there are about 3 per cent. of herds under restriction.
The average annual increase in the number of animals slaughtered as a result of TB control measures between 1990 and 2001 was 20 per cent. It is too early to say whether this long-term trend has been altered by the interruption of the testing programme due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001, and the priority testing of high-risk herds once the programme resumed.
In 2002/03 we paid out £31.1 million in TB compensation. With no new changes in policy, or disease dynamics, we could theoretically expect a 20 per cent. year on year increase in the compensation bill.
However, the TB programme will not remain static over the next four years. We recently consulted on proposals to rationalise compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases including bovine TB and we will shortly be consulting on proposals for a new TB strategy and options for controlling the geographical spread of the disease in the short term. The key challenge for Government and the farming industry will be to work together to reduce the overall economic impact of bovine TB.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total population of badgers in the UK; and in which areas the population is greatest. [148650]
Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from a National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990's.
The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The increasing number of applications received by Defra for licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (up 50 per cent. since 1999) suggest that this trend is continuing.
Badgers densities are highest in the south-west of England, with high densities present throughout southern counties, the west midlands and Wales.
The Department has been funding the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project which is being carried out by the Mammal Society and the British Trust for Ornithology. This is a pilot study intended to develop a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring system. The project is still at the pilot stage—but is intended in the future to provide valuable data on the abundance of mammal species, including badgers. Early findings confirm the pattern of distribution report in the National Badger Survey.
Full details of the badger survey findings are published in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7).
Results from the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project are available online at: http://www.bto.org/survey/special/mammal results.htm
26 Jan 2004: Column 2W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether wild deer are responsible for the spread of TB to cattle. [148655]
Mr. Bradshaw: In Great Britain, there is very limited evidence that deer have been responsible for transmitting tuberculosis to cattle. Wild deer in GB have generally been considered a sentinel or 'spill-over' host of infection in cattle and other wildlife, rather than the cause of it. Whether any wild deer populations (of any species) may constitute a reservoir of TB will depend upon the prevalence of TB, density and ecology of the hosts and the pathology that TB shows in those species.
Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the Southwest of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
26 Jan 2004: Column 3W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in cattle by 2008 if current measures are continued and there is no increase in activity by her Department; and what her projections are for costs of compensation for slaughter of cattle reactors in that period. [148657]
Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected 5 per cent. of cattle herds (5,181 herds) in Great Britain at some point between January and November 2003. At any one point in time there are about 3 per cent. of herds under restriction.
The average annual increase in the number of animals slaughtered as a result of TB control measures between 1990 and 2001 was 20 per cent. It is too early to say whether this long-term trend has been altered by the interruption of the testing programme due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001, and the priority testing of high-risk herds once the programme resumed.
In 2002/03 we paid out £31.1 million in TB compensation. With no new changes in policy, or disease dynamics, we could theoretically expect a 20 per cent. year on year increase in the compensation bill.
However, the TB programme will not remain static over the next four years. We recently consulted on proposals to rationalise compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases including bovine TB and we will shortly be consulting on proposals for a new TB strategy and options for controlling the geographical spread of the disease in the short term. The key challenge for Government and the farming industry will be to work together to reduce the overall economic impact of bovine TB.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
22 Jan 2004: Column 1365W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated in which badgers have been systematically removed from an area, and the area kept free of badgers, where the incidence of TB in cattle has declined; and what conclusions she drew from this work. [148660]
Mr. Bradshaw: Four large-scale badger clearances have been carried out, at Thornbury in Avon (104 sq km), at Steeple Leaze in Dorset (12 sq km), at Hartland in North Devon (about 62 sq km) and in an area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic (738 sq km). All four clearances were followed by a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.
However, none of the previous TB control strategies that involved badger culling have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns,
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
A complete assessment of previous TB control strategies can be found in the 1997 Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers by Professor John Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group (the "Krebs Report"), available in the House Library.
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the resources necessary to ensure that a given area is cleared and kept free of badgers, with particular reference to (a) number of visits and (b) personnel employed; [148651]
(2) what (a) financial and (b) human resources are allocated to the (i) clearance of badgers and (ii) the maintenance of badger-free areas in the Krebs proactive areas. [148659]
Mr. Bradshaw: As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), ten areas are subject to "proactive" treatment. As many badgers as possible within the design of the trial are culled in these areas (each approximately 100 sq km) and badger numbers are kept as low as possible. After the initial cull, the work involves an annual re-survey and cull of all proactive areas. However, the human resources for "proactive" work cannot be separately identified, except at disproportionate cost.
Information on the costs of trapping as a "proactive" culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the Government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent. of badgers.
The average number of field staff employed by the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit for field operations in the RBCT and the associated costs by financial year are given in the following table:
WLU Field Staff and Costs
Year Number of Field Staff Total cost of Wildlife Unit(£ million)
1998–1999 62 2.9
1999–2000 90 4.2
2000–2001 110 5.5
2001–2002 136 5.5
2002–2003 127 5.6
2003–2004(1) 133 6.8
(1) projected
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. Over the first three years of the Trial, contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with the Central Science Laboratory and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, is always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated in which badgers have been systematically removed from an area, and the area kept free of badgers, where the incidence of TB in cattle has declined; and what conclusions she drew from this work. [148660]
Mr. Bradshaw: Four large-scale badger clearances have been carried out, at Thornbury in Avon (104 sq km), at Steeple Leaze in Dorset (12 sq km), at Hartland in North Devon (about 62 sq km) and in an area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic (738 sq km). All four clearances were followed by a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.
However, none of the previous TB control strategies that involved badger culling have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns,
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
A complete assessment of previous TB control strategies can be found in the 1997 Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers by Professor John Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group (the "Krebs Report"), available in the House Library.
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the resources necessary to ensure that a given area is cleared and kept free of badgers, with particular reference to (a) number of visits and (b) personnel employed; [148651]
(2) what (a) financial and (b) human resources are allocated to the (i) clearance of badgers and (ii) the maintenance of badger-free areas in the Krebs proactive areas. [148659]
Mr. Bradshaw: As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), ten areas are subject to "proactive" treatment. As many badgers as possible within the design of the trial are culled in these areas (each approximately 100 sq km) and badger numbers are kept as low as possible. After the initial cull, the work involves an annual re-survey and cull of all proactive areas. However, the human resources for "proactive" work cannot be separately identified, except at disproportionate cost.
Information on the costs of trapping as a "proactive" culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the Government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent. of badgers.
The average number of field staff employed by the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit for field operations in the RBCT and the associated costs by financial year are given in the following table:
WLU Field Staff and Costs
Year Number of Field Staff Total cost of Wildlife Unit(£ million)
1998–1999 62 2.9
1999–2000 90 4.2
2000–2001 110 5.5
2001–2002 136 5.5
2002–2003 127 5.6
2003–2004(1) 133 6.8
(1) projected
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. Over the first three years of the Trial, contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with the Central Science Laboratory and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, is always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the traps and other equipment used for badger trapping exercises carried out on behalf of the Department. [148653]
Mr. Bradshaw: The traps and other equipment used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial are owned by Defra.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the administrative boundaries of the Krebs proactive areas necessarily coincide with the areas inhabited by badgers. [148658]
Mr. Bradshaw: The boundaries of treatment areas in which badger culling would take place were only prescribed once putative badger social group territories had been delineated. Any sett outside a trial area boundary which was associated with a social group of badgers whose territory fell within the trial area would be subject to the same treatment as the sett within the trial area (proactive or reactive culling) once allocated.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests have been carried out by the Department to determine
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
whether healthy badgers have acquired or are likely to acquire infection after colonising setts left vacant as a result of clearance of TB infected badgers. [148661]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is likely that the lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity inside a badger sett would favour the survival of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis). However, as there is currently no effective live test for TB in badgers, it would not be possible to tell if an incoming badger was healthy when colonising a vacant sett.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are humane methods licensed for the stunning and slaughter of animals and poultry which rely on gases to render animals unconscious prior to their slaughter. [148652]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended) lay down the permitted stunning and killing methods for both red meat animals and poultry. The permitted methods have been assessed for humaneness. The use of gas mixtures is a permitted method for rendering pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys unconscious. The use of gas mixtures is actually a stun-kill method, in that the animal or bird has to remain in the gas until it is dead.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1187W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which persons and organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers; what conditions are imposed on them; and under what circumstances badgers are allowed to be slaughtered. [148663]
Mr. Bradshaw: No persons or organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers.
Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000 (this applies to each badger killed).
There are certain specified exceptions to this offence under which badgers may be lawfully killed. These are summarised as follows.
Section 6—General exceptions
A person is not guilty of an offence:
where a seriously injured badger is killed or attempted to be killed as an act of mercy;
where a badger is unavoidably killed or injured as an incidental result of a lawful action; and
doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 eg experimental procedures approved under licence to advance biological or behavioural knowledge etc.
Section 7—"Farmer's defence"
A person is not guilty of an offence by reason of killing a badger if the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other form of property.
This defence cannot be relied upon if it was apparent before that time that action would prove necessary and a licence had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable, or where an application for such a licence had been determined.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Section 10—Licences
Licences may be granted to permit badgers to be killed for the following purposes:
scientific or educational purposes or the conservation of badgers;
preventing the spread of disease;
preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
The exceptions, and any conditions that apply, are stated in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www. legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga 19920051 en l.htm.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances badgers may be removed from setts; and what regulations govern such removals. [149221]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to remove (or attempt to remove) a badger from its sett, either forcibly (including the use of dogs) or by installing exclusion measures (such as one-way gates), or by obstructing access of a badger to its sett (Protection of Badgers Act 1992). A person guilty of any of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5000.
The legislation includes provisions for the granting of licences, which, where justified, could be used to permit the removal (by exclusion) of badgers from a sett. The purposes for which licences may be issued are summarised as follows:
Science, education or conservation of badgers
Zoological collections
Ringing or marking
Development
Archaeological preservation or investigation
Investigating offences
Preventing the spread of disease
Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property
Agricultural or forestry operations
Drainage or sea defence
These purposes are described in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
Controls relating to the removal of badgers from setts where the intention is to relocate the animals elsewhere—rather than simply denying access to a particular sett—are described in the joint response to parliamentary questions 0673 2003–04 and 0675 2003–04.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1189W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of TB in cattle that arises from cattle-to-cattle spread. [148654]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such estimate has been made. In many cases, it is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between environmental sources (including wildlife) and cattle, are not fully understood.
Part of the TB research programme includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the traps and other equipment used for badger trapping exercises carried out on behalf of the Department. [148653]
Mr. Bradshaw: The traps and other equipment used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial are owned by Defra.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the administrative boundaries of the Krebs proactive areas necessarily coincide with the areas inhabited by badgers. [148658]
Mr. Bradshaw: The boundaries of treatment areas in which badger culling would take place were only prescribed once putative badger social group territories had been delineated. Any sett outside a trial area boundary which was associated with a social group of badgers whose territory fell within the trial area would be subject to the same treatment as the sett within the trial area (proactive or reactive culling) once allocated.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests have been carried out by the Department to determine
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
whether healthy badgers have acquired or are likely to acquire infection after colonising setts left vacant as a result of clearance of TB infected badgers. [148661]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is likely that the lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity inside a badger sett would favour the survival of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis). However, as there is currently no effective live test for TB in badgers, it would not be possible to tell if an incoming badger was healthy when colonising a vacant sett.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are humane methods licensed for the stunning and slaughter of animals and poultry which rely on gases to render animals unconscious prior to their slaughter. [148652]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended) lay down the permitted stunning and killing methods for both red meat animals and poultry. The permitted methods have been assessed for humaneness. The use of gas mixtures is a permitted method for rendering pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys unconscious. The use of gas mixtures is actually a stun-kill method, in that the animal or bird has to remain in the gas until it is dead.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1187W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which persons and organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers; what conditions are imposed on them; and under what circumstances badgers are allowed to be slaughtered. [148663]
Mr. Bradshaw: No persons or organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers.
Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000 (this applies to each badger killed).
There are certain specified exceptions to this offence under which badgers may be lawfully killed. These are summarised as follows.
Section 6—General exceptions
A person is not guilty of an offence:
where a seriously injured badger is killed or attempted to be killed as an act of mercy;
where a badger is unavoidably killed or injured as an incidental result of a lawful action; and
doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 eg experimental procedures approved under licence to advance biological or behavioural knowledge etc.
Section 7—"Farmer's defence"
A person is not guilty of an offence by reason of killing a badger if the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other form of property.
This defence cannot be relied upon if it was apparent before that time that action would prove necessary and a licence had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable, or where an application for such a licence had been determined.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Section 10—Licences
Licences may be granted to permit badgers to be killed for the following purposes:
scientific or educational purposes or the conservation of badgers;
preventing the spread of disease;
preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
The exceptions, and any conditions that apply, are stated in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www. legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga 19920051 en l.htm.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances badgers may be removed from setts; and what regulations govern such removals. [149221]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to remove (or attempt to remove) a badger from its sett, either forcibly (including the use of dogs) or by installing exclusion measures (such as one-way gates), or by obstructing access of a badger to its sett (Protection of Badgers Act 1992). A person guilty of any of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5000.
The legislation includes provisions for the granting of licences, which, where justified, could be used to permit the removal (by exclusion) of badgers from a sett. The purposes for which licences may be issued are summarised as follows:
Science, education or conservation of badgers
Zoological collections
Ringing or marking
Development
Archaeological preservation or investigation
Investigating offences
Preventing the spread of disease
Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property
Agricultural or forestry operations
Drainage or sea defence
These purposes are described in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
Controls relating to the removal of badgers from setts where the intention is to relocate the animals elsewhere—rather than simply denying access to a particular sett—are described in the joint response to parliamentary questions 0673 2003–04 and 0675 2003–04.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1189W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of TB in cattle that arises from cattle-to-cattle spread. [148654]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such estimate has been made. In many cases, it is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between environmental sources (including wildlife) and cattle, are not fully understood.
Part of the TB research programme includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
14 Jan 2004: Column 731W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is scope within the new Animal Welfare Bill to cull out contiguous pockets of M. bovis infection in species other than badgers. [144589]
Mr. Bradshaw: No. The proposed Animal Welfare Bill will relate only to the welfare of captive and domestic animals. Wild animals in the wild are therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is scope within the new Animal Welfare Bill to cull out contiguous pockets of M. bovis infection in species other than badgers. [144589]
Mr. Bradshaw: No. The proposed Animal Welfare Bill will relate only to the welfare of captive and domestic animals. Wild animals in the wild are therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
7 Jan 2004: Column 359W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government plans to remove the protected status from badgers. [142462]
Mr. Bradshaw: No.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government plans to remove the protected status from badgers. [142462]
Mr. Bradshaw: No.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
6 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive on open pasture; and under what conditions. [141395]
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Bradshaw: Mycobacterium bovis may be present within a variety of media on open pasture, each influencing the survival of the bacilli. In cow manure M. bovis may survive for up to four months in autumn, five months in winter and two months in spring, dependent on concentration. Greater concentrations promote survival.
When exposed to sunlight at 24–34 degrees celsius M. bovis has survived for 5–11 months in manure at pasture. Survival in samples buried in 1cm deep pits has been up to one year and at 5cm deep up to two years.
M. bovis can be highly concentrated in badger urine and can survive for over a week on open pasture during the winter but very few bacilli survive after four weeks. During the summer survival can reduce to less than three days in badger urine.
M. bovis in badger bronchial pus and sputum can survive for up to 10 weeks on open pasture in winter but less than one week in summer. Survival in badger faeces can be for up to one month during the winter but less than two weeks in summer.
Survival may also be influenced by the presence of other microorganisms in the environment. Fungi, algae, protozoans and many other bacteria compete with M. bovis for nutrients, may have greater growth rates, and may produce natural antibiotics.
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB reactor cattle were reported to her Department and its predecessors, (a) in each year from 1990 to 2002 and (b) from 1 January to 31 October; how many were subject to culture testing; and how many proved TB positive on culture. [142468]
Mr. Bradshaw: Table 1 shows the number of TB reactors, how many were subject to culture for Mycobacterium bovis, and the number successfully cultured for the years 1990–2002 in Great Britain.
Table 2 gives provisional data for the number of TB reactors, the number subject to culture, and the number successfully cultured for Mycobacterium bovis in Great Britain for 2003 (till end of October).
Table 1 GB Figures Number of TB Reactors Number Subject To Culture Testing TB Positive on Culture
1990 719 4 (1)—
1991 1,050 4 (1)—
1992 1,086 (1)— (1)—
1993 1,814 2 (1)—
1994 2,248 515 238
1995 2,861 2,492 1,051
1996 3,296 2,852 1,163
1997 3,358 3,005 1,196
1998 5,063 4,121 1,645
1999 6,047 4,894 2,033
2000 7,143 5,456 2,550
2001 5,472 3,818 1,447
2002 20,053 14,102 2,557
(1)— Data not available
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Table 2 2003 GB Figures (provisional) January to October 2003
Number of TB Reactors 17,589
Number Subject To Culture 12,228
TB Positive on Culture 2,681
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether badgers infected by TB may excrete urine from which viable M. bovis bacilli may be isolated; what the typical quantities per millilitre are; and whether such levels are capable of causing infection in cattle through (a) contamination of feed and (b) other mechanisms. [144445]
Mr. Bradshaw: Some badgers develop TB infection in the kidneys 37 per cent. of infected badgers sampled post mortem between 1971 and 1978 m. bovis was isolated from the kidneys and may excrete M. bovis bacilli in urine. Urine is typically left in trails up to a metre or more in length and may be focussed at a latrine or distributed more randomly as the badger forages. Concentrations of up to 300,000 bacilli per ml of badger urine have been reported and experimental nasal inoculation of cattle suggests that, at this concentration of viable microbes, less than 0.03 ml would need to be inhaled by cattle in order to promote slow infection.
Investigations into infection of cattle from feed and other sources contaminated with infected badger urine are lacking. However, risk of infection to cattle by infected badger urine on cattle feed would be a function of the survival of the microbe in the feed (which is dependent on, for example, duration since excretion, moisture content of the environment, exposure to UV rays) the number of microbes consumed by the cattle and the method of consumption (i.e. ingestion or inhalation). I am unaware of measurements of M. bovis survival in cattle feed but the environment inside farm buildings is generally considered to be conducive to longer periods of survival than at pasture, where M. bovis in badger urine has survived for three days in summer and 28 days in winter.
Cattle appear less able to detect badger urine than faeces at pasture away from latrines. In addition, patches contaminated with urine detected by cattle appear to be sniffed more than those contaminated with faeces. Furthermore, some cattle do not select against latrines and freely graze over them. Therefore, potential sources of risk of cattle contact with infected badger urine include the ingestion of contaminated feed from feed stores or in troughs; investigation/grazing at and around latrines; and the investigation/grazing of contaminated pasture.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 249W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls there are on the movement of wild badgers, for relocation elsewhere, with particular reference to Krebs trapping areas. [144446]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations licensed by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).
Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:
"(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it".
As a native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered. Normally, once fit enough to be released into the wild, the badger will be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).
There is a voluntary code of practice covering the rehabilitation and release of badgers, and this has a precautionary approach aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). All badgers to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only animals testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is euthanased. The code also requires that all released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered. The code is available via the internet at: http://www. badger.org.uk/action/badger-rehabilitation-protocol-contents.html
6 Jan 2004 : Column 250W
Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes, including scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property.
Relocating badgers is only permitted where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting TB, and before any badgers are released at a new location all animals are tested three times for the disease. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.
Badgers are not relocated as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (the so-called Kreb's trial), and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB have advised that are no special arrangements relating to the relocation of badgers in trial areas.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for post movement testing of cattle for exposure to M. bovis; and what assessment she has made of the implications of such testing (a) within four months of movement and (b) by the date of the next due test of the herd from which the animal came. [144436]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase and to consider arranging a private TB test for their herd.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement testing of cattle.
When considering post-movement testing of cattle sold from farm to farm, we have envisaged that, as a general rule, such tests would be administered between 60 and 120 days after movement (i.e. 2–4 months post movement). This is to ensure that a minimum of 60 days have elapsed since the last test and since any potential exposure to M. bovis on the premises of origin, to avoid problems of de-sensitisation caused by recent testing and to allow for the normal delay in the development of a response to the skin test. Knowledge of whether a pre-movement test had taken place and when, would allow the post movement test to be better targeted.
Assuming post-movement testing is carried out as outlined, the date of the next due test of the herd of origin need not be considered.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recognised minimum time required is from exposure of cattle to M. bovis to an immune response which will show in the skin test used by her Department. [144437]
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Bradshaw: The immune response elicited by Mycobacterium bovis in cattle takes several weeks to develop to a stage where it is detectable. For the single intradermal comparative test used in the UK and Ireland, this period of "unresponsiveness" or latency varies between 30 and 50 days.
To allow for random and natural variation in the latency period of individual animals, the legislation requires repeat testing to be carried out at intervals of at least 60 days from the date of the removal (or isolation) of all the reactors identified at the previous skin test.
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what significant variations in incubation period have been observed in herd breakdowns involving several cattle reactors resulting from infection with M.bovis. [144439]
Mr. Bradshaw: Many factors influence the progression of Mycobacterium bovis, infection into detectable disease, including the strain of the bacterium, size of bacterial challenge and route of infection. Other factors include affected animal (species, breed, genotype, age) or the effects of its environment (nutritional status, stress, other infections and environmental bacteria).
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of M.bovis have been found in (a) cattle and (b) badgers in the UK; and what assessment has been made of the virulence of each strain. [144440]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether development of lesions in cattle following exposure to M.bovis is the result of (a) a more virulent strain, (b) the level of infective dose and (c) the frequency of the infective dose. [144441]
Mr. Bradshaw: The pathogenesis of bovine TB is not yet fully understood. As a result, Defra is funding several research projects into the pathogenesis and immunology of the disease.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of herd breakdown was in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 1998; how many 60 day tests were needed to clear (i) suspect and (ii) infected herds in each year; and what the cost of the tests were. [144442]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information is as follows:
(a) The average duration of TB incidents ending in 2002 was skewed by those herds already restricted when TB testing was suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. The figures for TB incidents ending in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available) were as follows: unconfirmed incidents—149 days; confirmed incident—291 days.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 252W
(b) The mean length of unconfirmed new TB incidents (herd breakdowns) ending in 1998 was 114 days, i.e. slightly less than two short interval (60-day) tests. In the same year, the mean length of confirmed new incidents was 208 days.
Information on the cost of tests needed to clear unconfirmed and confirmed herd incidents in each year is not readily available and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of badgers which appeared TB free in post-mortem examination were culture positive to M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144443]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data are available is 1999. These are from Badger Removal Operations and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey that predate the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated RTA survey.
In 1999, 874 badger carcasses were considered suitable for post-mortem examination. 753 displayed no visible lesions suggestive of TB. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated in 54 of these. Therefore, the proportion appearing TB free at post-mortem, but culture positive for m. bovis is 7.2 per cent.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle showed no visible lesions in post mortem examination but were culture positive for M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144444]
Mr. Bradshaw: Last year, 6,600 samples were sent for laboratory culture after no visible lesions were found at post mortem. Mycobacterium bovis was successfully cultured in 5.6 per cent. of these.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive on open pasture; and under what conditions. [141395]
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Bradshaw: Mycobacterium bovis may be present within a variety of media on open pasture, each influencing the survival of the bacilli. In cow manure M. bovis may survive for up to four months in autumn, five months in winter and two months in spring, dependent on concentration. Greater concentrations promote survival.
When exposed to sunlight at 24–34 degrees celsius M. bovis has survived for 5–11 months in manure at pasture. Survival in samples buried in 1cm deep pits has been up to one year and at 5cm deep up to two years.
M. bovis can be highly concentrated in badger urine and can survive for over a week on open pasture during the winter but very few bacilli survive after four weeks. During the summer survival can reduce to less than three days in badger urine.
M. bovis in badger bronchial pus and sputum can survive for up to 10 weeks on open pasture in winter but less than one week in summer. Survival in badger faeces can be for up to one month during the winter but less than two weeks in summer.
Survival may also be influenced by the presence of other microorganisms in the environment. Fungi, algae, protozoans and many other bacteria compete with M. bovis for nutrients, may have greater growth rates, and may produce natural antibiotics.
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB reactor cattle were reported to her Department and its predecessors, (a) in each year from 1990 to 2002 and (b) from 1 January to 31 October; how many were subject to culture testing; and how many proved TB positive on culture. [142468]
Mr. Bradshaw: Table 1 shows the number of TB reactors, how many were subject to culture for Mycobacterium bovis, and the number successfully cultured for the years 1990–2002 in Great Britain.
Table 2 gives provisional data for the number of TB reactors, the number subject to culture, and the number successfully cultured for Mycobacterium bovis in Great Britain for 2003 (till end of October).
Table 1 GB Figures Number of TB Reactors Number Subject To Culture Testing TB Positive on Culture
1990 719 4 (1)—
1991 1,050 4 (1)—
1992 1,086 (1)— (1)—
1993 1,814 2 (1)—
1994 2,248 515 238
1995 2,861 2,492 1,051
1996 3,296 2,852 1,163
1997 3,358 3,005 1,196
1998 5,063 4,121 1,645
1999 6,047 4,894 2,033
2000 7,143 5,456 2,550
2001 5,472 3,818 1,447
2002 20,053 14,102 2,557
(1)— Data not available
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Table 2 2003 GB Figures (provisional) January to October 2003
Number of TB Reactors 17,589
Number Subject To Culture 12,228
TB Positive on Culture 2,681
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether badgers infected by TB may excrete urine from which viable M. bovis bacilli may be isolated; what the typical quantities per millilitre are; and whether such levels are capable of causing infection in cattle through (a) contamination of feed and (b) other mechanisms. [144445]
Mr. Bradshaw: Some badgers develop TB infection in the kidneys 37 per cent. of infected badgers sampled post mortem between 1971 and 1978 m. bovis was isolated from the kidneys and may excrete M. bovis bacilli in urine. Urine is typically left in trails up to a metre or more in length and may be focussed at a latrine or distributed more randomly as the badger forages. Concentrations of up to 300,000 bacilli per ml of badger urine have been reported and experimental nasal inoculation of cattle suggests that, at this concentration of viable microbes, less than 0.03 ml would need to be inhaled by cattle in order to promote slow infection.
Investigations into infection of cattle from feed and other sources contaminated with infected badger urine are lacking. However, risk of infection to cattle by infected badger urine on cattle feed would be a function of the survival of the microbe in the feed (which is dependent on, for example, duration since excretion, moisture content of the environment, exposure to UV rays) the number of microbes consumed by the cattle and the method of consumption (i.e. ingestion or inhalation). I am unaware of measurements of M. bovis survival in cattle feed but the environment inside farm buildings is generally considered to be conducive to longer periods of survival than at pasture, where M. bovis in badger urine has survived for three days in summer and 28 days in winter.
Cattle appear less able to detect badger urine than faeces at pasture away from latrines. In addition, patches contaminated with urine detected by cattle appear to be sniffed more than those contaminated with faeces. Furthermore, some cattle do not select against latrines and freely graze over them. Therefore, potential sources of risk of cattle contact with infected badger urine include the ingestion of contaminated feed from feed stores or in troughs; investigation/grazing at and around latrines; and the investigation/grazing of contaminated pasture.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 249W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls there are on the movement of wild badgers, for relocation elsewhere, with particular reference to Krebs trapping areas. [144446]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations licensed by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).
Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:
"(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it".
As a native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered. Normally, once fit enough to be released into the wild, the badger will be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).
There is a voluntary code of practice covering the rehabilitation and release of badgers, and this has a precautionary approach aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). All badgers to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only animals testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is euthanased. The code also requires that all released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered. The code is available via the internet at: http://www. badger.org.uk/action/badger-rehabilitation-protocol-contents.html
6 Jan 2004 : Column 250W
Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes, including scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property.
Relocating badgers is only permitted where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting TB, and before any badgers are released at a new location all animals are tested three times for the disease. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.
Badgers are not relocated as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (the so-called Kreb's trial), and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB have advised that are no special arrangements relating to the relocation of badgers in trial areas.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for post movement testing of cattle for exposure to M. bovis; and what assessment she has made of the implications of such testing (a) within four months of movement and (b) by the date of the next due test of the herd from which the animal came. [144436]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase and to consider arranging a private TB test for their herd.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement testing of cattle.
When considering post-movement testing of cattle sold from farm to farm, we have envisaged that, as a general rule, such tests would be administered between 60 and 120 days after movement (i.e. 2–4 months post movement). This is to ensure that a minimum of 60 days have elapsed since the last test and since any potential exposure to M. bovis on the premises of origin, to avoid problems of de-sensitisation caused by recent testing and to allow for the normal delay in the development of a response to the skin test. Knowledge of whether a pre-movement test had taken place and when, would allow the post movement test to be better targeted.
Assuming post-movement testing is carried out as outlined, the date of the next due test of the herd of origin need not be considered.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recognised minimum time required is from exposure of cattle to M. bovis to an immune response which will show in the skin test used by her Department. [144437]
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Bradshaw: The immune response elicited by Mycobacterium bovis in cattle takes several weeks to develop to a stage where it is detectable. For the single intradermal comparative test used in the UK and Ireland, this period of "unresponsiveness" or latency varies between 30 and 50 days.
To allow for random and natural variation in the latency period of individual animals, the legislation requires repeat testing to be carried out at intervals of at least 60 days from the date of the removal (or isolation) of all the reactors identified at the previous skin test.
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what significant variations in incubation period have been observed in herd breakdowns involving several cattle reactors resulting from infection with M.bovis. [144439]
Mr. Bradshaw: Many factors influence the progression of Mycobacterium bovis, infection into detectable disease, including the strain of the bacterium, size of bacterial challenge and route of infection. Other factors include affected animal (species, breed, genotype, age) or the effects of its environment (nutritional status, stress, other infections and environmental bacteria).
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of M.bovis have been found in (a) cattle and (b) badgers in the UK; and what assessment has been made of the virulence of each strain. [144440]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether development of lesions in cattle following exposure to M.bovis is the result of (a) a more virulent strain, (b) the level of infective dose and (c) the frequency of the infective dose. [144441]
Mr. Bradshaw: The pathogenesis of bovine TB is not yet fully understood. As a result, Defra is funding several research projects into the pathogenesis and immunology of the disease.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of herd breakdown was in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 1998; how many 60 day tests were needed to clear (i) suspect and (ii) infected herds in each year; and what the cost of the tests were. [144442]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information is as follows:
(a) The average duration of TB incidents ending in 2002 was skewed by those herds already restricted when TB testing was suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. The figures for TB incidents ending in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available) were as follows: unconfirmed incidents—149 days; confirmed incident—291 days.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 252W
(b) The mean length of unconfirmed new TB incidents (herd breakdowns) ending in 1998 was 114 days, i.e. slightly less than two short interval (60-day) tests. In the same year, the mean length of confirmed new incidents was 208 days.
Information on the cost of tests needed to clear unconfirmed and confirmed herd incidents in each year is not readily available and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of badgers which appeared TB free in post-mortem examination were culture positive to M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144443]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data are available is 1999. These are from Badger Removal Operations and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey that predate the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated RTA survey.
In 1999, 874 badger carcasses were considered suitable for post-mortem examination. 753 displayed no visible lesions suggestive of TB. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated in 54 of these. Therefore, the proportion appearing TB free at post-mortem, but culture positive for m. bovis is 7.2 per cent.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle showed no visible lesions in post mortem examination but were culture positive for M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144444]
Mr. Bradshaw: Last year, 6,600 samples were sent for laboratory culture after no visible lesions were found at post mortem. Mycobacterium bovis was successfully cultured in 5.6 per cent. of these.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
5 Jan 2004: Column 91W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the reactive cull component of the Government's randomised badger culling trials on the incidence of TB in dairy cattle. [144403]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB carried out an interim analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial data collected up to the end of August 2003. The analysis indicated that there is an increased risk of TB breakdowns occurring in trial areas where reactive culling has taken place, compared to the related control (survey-only) areas. The increase is estimated at 27 per cent.
This conclusion is statistically valid and has been reached after taking into account factors other than culling (e.g. history of breakdowns in the area, number of herds, herd size etc.) which may have an impact on the number of breakdowns in a particular area. This outcome is consistent across nine of the 10 triplets; there has not been any reactive culling in the 10th reactive trial area.
On the basis of these findings, ministers have decided to suspend culling in reactive trial areas, because the evidence suggests that such culling leads to more cases of TB in cattle.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the reactive cull component of the Government's randomised badger culling trials on the incidence of TB in dairy cattle. [144403]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB carried out an interim analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial data collected up to the end of August 2003. The analysis indicated that there is an increased risk of TB breakdowns occurring in trial areas where reactive culling has taken place, compared to the related control (survey-only) areas. The increase is estimated at 27 per cent.
This conclusion is statistically valid and has been reached after taking into account factors other than culling (e.g. history of breakdowns in the area, number of herds, herd size etc.) which may have an impact on the number of breakdowns in a particular area. This outcome is consistent across nine of the 10 triplets; there has not been any reactive culling in the 10th reactive trial area.
On the basis of these findings, ministers have decided to suspend culling in reactive trial areas, because the evidence suggests that such culling leads to more cases of TB in cattle.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
18 Dec 2003: Column 1018W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for pre-movement testing of cattle for exposure to m.bovis. [144438]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short-term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement of cattle.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for pre-movement testing of cattle for exposure to m.bovis. [144438]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short-term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement of cattle.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
16 Dec 2003: Column 821W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether perturbation in badger populations can be eliminated or substantially reduced by improved badger culling programme design and execution. [141384]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such assessment has been made.
16 Dec 2003: Column 821W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1) what proportion of TB lesions found in cows subject to post-mortem examination for TB were considered to be of a type which would have rendered the cattle in which they were found capable of transmitting bovine TB to another bovine animal in England in the past 10 years; [141089]
(2) where the main TB lesions have been found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examinations for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years; [141389]
(3) what inferences have been drawn from the sites of TB lesions found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England, in the past 10 years, as to the routes of transmission. [141392]
Mr. Bradshaw: The vast majority of lesions found in reactors to the TB skin test and in cases disclosed in the slaughterhouse are found in the lymph nodes of the throat and lungs (i.e. retropharyngeal, bronchial and mediastinal nodes).
Any bovine animals infected with the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) becomes potentially infectious for other animals after a period of latency. By the time shedding begins, the animal may or may not have developed visible lesions.
The routes of transmission in field conditions are not fully understood but the distribution of the lesions strongly suggest that the respiratory and oro-pharyngeal routes are the most common.
Reactors to the tuberculin test and confirmed slaughterhouse cases are considered to be infected and infectious. The testing regime applied to the remainder of the herd after removal of the reactors takes account of this.
16 Dec 2003: Column 821W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the implications are for the UK beef and dairy industries should the UK lose its Organisation International des Epizooties TB-free status. [142000]
Mr. Bradshaw: The United Kingdom does not satisfy the requirements of the OIE or EU to be regarded as TB-free. Article 2.3.3.11. of the OIE Terrestrial Code states that international trade in beef requires the:
"presentation of an international veterinary certificate attesting that the entire consignment of meat comes from animals which have been subjected to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections for bovine tuberculosis with favourable results".
16 Dec 2003 : Column 822W
Thus, beef can be traded provided the Meat Hygiene Service has passed the meat as fit for human consumption.
In the case of dairy products, the OIE does not provide recommendations for the international trade in milk to protect against TB.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether perturbation in badger populations can be eliminated or substantially reduced by improved badger culling programme design and execution. [141384]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such assessment has been made.
16 Dec 2003: Column 821W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1) what proportion of TB lesions found in cows subject to post-mortem examination for TB were considered to be of a type which would have rendered the cattle in which they were found capable of transmitting bovine TB to another bovine animal in England in the past 10 years; [141089]
(2) where the main TB lesions have been found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examinations for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years; [141389]
(3) what inferences have been drawn from the sites of TB lesions found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England, in the past 10 years, as to the routes of transmission. [141392]
Mr. Bradshaw: The vast majority of lesions found in reactors to the TB skin test and in cases disclosed in the slaughterhouse are found in the lymph nodes of the throat and lungs (i.e. retropharyngeal, bronchial and mediastinal nodes).
Any bovine animals infected with the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) becomes potentially infectious for other animals after a period of latency. By the time shedding begins, the animal may or may not have developed visible lesions.
The routes of transmission in field conditions are not fully understood but the distribution of the lesions strongly suggest that the respiratory and oro-pharyngeal routes are the most common.
Reactors to the tuberculin test and confirmed slaughterhouse cases are considered to be infected and infectious. The testing regime applied to the remainder of the herd after removal of the reactors takes account of this.
16 Dec 2003: Column 821W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the implications are for the UK beef and dairy industries should the UK lose its Organisation International des Epizooties TB-free status. [142000]
Mr. Bradshaw: The United Kingdom does not satisfy the requirements of the OIE or EU to be regarded as TB-free. Article 2.3.3.11. of the OIE Terrestrial Code states that international trade in beef requires the:
"presentation of an international veterinary certificate attesting that the entire consignment of meat comes from animals which have been subjected to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections for bovine tuberculosis with favourable results".
16 Dec 2003 : Column 822W
Thus, beef can be traded provided the Meat Hygiene Service has passed the meat as fit for human consumption.
In the case of dairy products, the OIE does not provide recommendations for the international trade in milk to protect against TB.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
15 Dec 2003: Column 629W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in dairy cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is Government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent. of the market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance for their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not
15 Dec 2003 : Column 630W
paid, but this is a commercial matter between the farmers and their insurers. Section 34 (5) of the Animal Health Act 1981 explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout that they make.
Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of premiums, based on their assessment of the risk. Recent contact with insurance industry early in 2003 indicated that, although companies are honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take the cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire), but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West). However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present.
15 Dec 2003: Column 630W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of compensation paid to farmers in respect of compulsory purchase of bovine animals slaughtered as a result of TB infection (a) between 1994 and 1998 and (b) since 1998. [142457]
Mr. Bradshaw: The data requested are provided in the tables.
Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998 Cost (£)(1)
1994 2,019,911
1995 1,988,820
1996 2,275,481
1997 2,386,029
1998 3,605,242
Total 12,275,483
Source:
(1) The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 1998.
Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1999 and 2002 Cost (£)(2)
1999 5,770,983
2000 7,307,797
2001 7,074,125
2002 (3)23, 138,512
Total 43,291,417
Sources:
(2) The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 2002.
(3) In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests that would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered (and hence compensated for) in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.
15 Dec 2003: Column 631W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of shortages of large animal vets for successful control of TB in cattle. [141975]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to carry out such an assessment. However, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee issued a report on Vets and Veterinary Services on 23 October 2003 (HC 703), which considers wider concerns about the numbers of large animal practices and the contribution of the veterinary profession to the wider animal health and welfare strategy.
The report contains a number of recommendations and conclusions, and we will be seeking the views of the veterinary profession and other interested parties on the issues raised.
15 Dec 2003: Column 631W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether badgers are capable of accessing mineral and feed troughs positioned at heights in excess of those advised by the Department; and what height that evidence indicates badgers are capable of accessing. [141503]
Mr. Bradshaw: Recent work carried out by the Central Science Laboratory has established that badgers are capable of climbing into feed troughs set at 115cm above ground level, at which height they are inaccessible to cattle.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in dairy cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is Government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent. of the market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance for their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not
15 Dec 2003 : Column 630W
paid, but this is a commercial matter between the farmers and their insurers. Section 34 (5) of the Animal Health Act 1981 explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout that they make.
Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of premiums, based on their assessment of the risk. Recent contact with insurance industry early in 2003 indicated that, although companies are honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take the cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire), but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West). However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present.
15 Dec 2003: Column 630W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of compensation paid to farmers in respect of compulsory purchase of bovine animals slaughtered as a result of TB infection (a) between 1994 and 1998 and (b) since 1998. [142457]
Mr. Bradshaw: The data requested are provided in the tables.
Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998 Cost (£)(1)
1994 2,019,911
1995 1,988,820
1996 2,275,481
1997 2,386,029
1998 3,605,242
Total 12,275,483
Source:
(1) The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 1998.
Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1999 and 2002 Cost (£)(2)
1999 5,770,983
2000 7,307,797
2001 7,074,125
2002 (3)23, 138,512
Total 43,291,417
Sources:
(2) The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 2002.
(3) In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests that would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered (and hence compensated for) in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.
15 Dec 2003: Column 631W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of shortages of large animal vets for successful control of TB in cattle. [141975]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to carry out such an assessment. However, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee issued a report on Vets and Veterinary Services on 23 October 2003 (HC 703), which considers wider concerns about the numbers of large animal practices and the contribution of the veterinary profession to the wider animal health and welfare strategy.
The report contains a number of recommendations and conclusions, and we will be seeking the views of the veterinary profession and other interested parties on the issues raised.
15 Dec 2003: Column 631W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether badgers are capable of accessing mineral and feed troughs positioned at heights in excess of those advised by the Department; and what height that evidence indicates badgers are capable of accessing. [141503]
Mr. Bradshaw: Recent work carried out by the Central Science Laboratory has established that badgers are capable of climbing into feed troughs set at 115cm above ground level, at which height they are inaccessible to cattle.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
11 Dec 2003: Column 538W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people, since 1998, have been arrested for interfering with Government badger traps; and how many have been prosecuted. [141973]
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Bradshaw: The arrest and prosecution of anti-trial activists is the responsibility of the relevant police forces in whose areas the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas are located, and the Crown Prosecution Service. Defra does not receive information on, or maintain records of, such arrests and prosecutions.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what deleterious effects on wildlife arising from the current badger population level have been recorded by her Department and other UK public bodies. [141992]
Mr. Bradshaw: Previous research has shown that there is a negative relationship between badger and hedgehog abundance, i.e. more badgers equals fewer hedgehogs, in rural areas. This is believed to be due to hedgehog predation by badgers and through hedgehogs avoiding areas of higher badger density. However, this is not necessarily a “deleterious effect on wildlife”, since predator/prey interactions are a feature of ecosystems. It has been suggested that badgers may impact adversely on some species of ground nesting birds. The interaction between the badgers and other species in the ecosystem is the subject of a study being carried out by the Central Science Laboratory. This study is being conducted in selected areas of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and the results will not be available until after the fieldwork programme finishes at the end of 2004.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost has been of the reactive cull component of the Government's Randomised Badger Culling Trials. [142459]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to give an accurate cost of the reactive element of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The total cost of the trial to the end of March 2004 is forecast to have reached £30.5 million.
11 Dec 2003: Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been killed as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trials; how many were tested for TB infection; and how many were culture positive for TB. [142467]
Mr. Bradshaw: As at 5 December 2003, 8,276 badgers had been culled in the Randomised Badger Culling Trials. All culled badgers are tested for TB infection. On the advice of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, data on the prevalence of TB in badgers caught in the trial, along with locations of their capture and the incidence of TB in cattle in trial areas, once triplets are active, are not released. This is to protect the integrity of the trial, and for the security of Defra field staff and farmers co-operating in the work.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used to assess whether a reactive badger culling programme is effective. [142472]
Mr. Bradshaw: These are set out in the Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Essentially, over the same time period, the number of cattle herd breakdowns in reactive trial areas are compared to the number of herd breakdowns in the survey only trial areas, taking into account factors such
11 Dec 2003 : Column 540W
as numbers of herds per trial area, timing of tuberculin test and a number of other variables. For analytical purposes, the starting point used for such comparisons, for each triplet, is the end of the initial culling operation in the proactive trial area.
11 Dec 2003: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what examples there have been of reactive badger culling programmes in England where the work was successful in controlling TB in cattle; and where and when those programmes were carried out. [141970]
Mr. Bradshaw: Since the early 1970s MAFF/Defra has carried out a range of badger control strategies in an attempt to reduce TB incidence in cattle. These were reviewed in the Krebs Report in 1997 where, among other things, it was recommended that a scientific field experiment be set up to test rigorously the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of different badger culling strategies and to provide the evidence on which to base future TB control strategies. The Krebs report recommended a randomised block approach comprising three treatments: reactive culling, proactive culling, and no culling. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, as recommended by Krebs and designed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, commenced in 1998.
Previous control strategies included Gassing (1975–82), Clean Ring (1982–86), Interim (1986 to 1998) and Live Test (1994–96) further details are available in the Krebs Report Chapter 5 page 76. None of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
11 Dec 2003: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in (a) badgers and (b) cattle in England during (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005. [142469]
11 Dec 2003: Column 541W
Mr. Bradshaw: It is only possible to make estimates of the incidence of bovine TB in cattle based on previous years. Unfortunately, data for both 2002 and 2001 cannot be easily compared to earlier years. This is because, in 2001, TB testing was largely suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and in 2002 much of the testing effort was aimed at high-risk herds and those with overdue tests. Nevertheless, early indications suggest that the reduced levels of testing in 2001 have not substantially altered the underlying historical trend of confirmed TB incidents in cattle, which continues to rise at a yearly average rate of about 18 per cent. for new herd incidents.
No estimates have been made regarding the incidence of TB in badgers.
11 Dec 2003: Column 541W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the level of funding to laboratories for the examination of bovine samples for M. bovis on the time scale for the testing of samples. [142338]
Mr. Bradshaw: Culture of samples for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) takes at least six weeks. A backlog of samples built up at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.
An extra £650,000 funding was made available in 2003–04 to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) to tackle the backlog. So far in 2003, the monthly throughput at VLA of bovine samples for culture has been more than three times higher than in 2002. Fresh samples are now being processed as they arrive at VLA and we are further reducing the backlog of frozen samples.
At the end of October 2003 there were 1,781 tissue samples awaiting culture at the VLA (down from 6,329 at the end of March 2003). Nearly all of the outstanding samples (1,712) are from carcases that showed no visible lesions at post-mortem, and thus not causing a delay in lifting movement restrictions from farms.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people, since 1998, have been arrested for interfering with Government badger traps; and how many have been prosecuted. [141973]
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Bradshaw: The arrest and prosecution of anti-trial activists is the responsibility of the relevant police forces in whose areas the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas are located, and the Crown Prosecution Service. Defra does not receive information on, or maintain records of, such arrests and prosecutions.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what deleterious effects on wildlife arising from the current badger population level have been recorded by her Department and other UK public bodies. [141992]
Mr. Bradshaw: Previous research has shown that there is a negative relationship between badger and hedgehog abundance, i.e. more badgers equals fewer hedgehogs, in rural areas. This is believed to be due to hedgehog predation by badgers and through hedgehogs avoiding areas of higher badger density. However, this is not necessarily a “deleterious effect on wildlife”, since predator/prey interactions are a feature of ecosystems. It has been suggested that badgers may impact adversely on some species of ground nesting birds. The interaction between the badgers and other species in the ecosystem is the subject of a study being carried out by the Central Science Laboratory. This study is being conducted in selected areas of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and the results will not be available until after the fieldwork programme finishes at the end of 2004.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost has been of the reactive cull component of the Government's Randomised Badger Culling Trials. [142459]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to give an accurate cost of the reactive element of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The total cost of the trial to the end of March 2004 is forecast to have reached £30.5 million.
11 Dec 2003: Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been killed as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trials; how many were tested for TB infection; and how many were culture positive for TB. [142467]
Mr. Bradshaw: As at 5 December 2003, 8,276 badgers had been culled in the Randomised Badger Culling Trials. All culled badgers are tested for TB infection. On the advice of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, data on the prevalence of TB in badgers caught in the trial, along with locations of their capture and the incidence of TB in cattle in trial areas, once triplets are active, are not released. This is to protect the integrity of the trial, and for the security of Defra field staff and farmers co-operating in the work.
11 Dec 2003 : Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used to assess whether a reactive badger culling programme is effective. [142472]
Mr. Bradshaw: These are set out in the Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Essentially, over the same time period, the number of cattle herd breakdowns in reactive trial areas are compared to the number of herd breakdowns in the survey only trial areas, taking into account factors such
11 Dec 2003 : Column 540W
as numbers of herds per trial area, timing of tuberculin test and a number of other variables. For analytical purposes, the starting point used for such comparisons, for each triplet, is the end of the initial culling operation in the proactive trial area.
11 Dec 2003: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what examples there have been of reactive badger culling programmes in England where the work was successful in controlling TB in cattle; and where and when those programmes were carried out. [141970]
Mr. Bradshaw: Since the early 1970s MAFF/Defra has carried out a range of badger control strategies in an attempt to reduce TB incidence in cattle. These were reviewed in the Krebs Report in 1997 where, among other things, it was recommended that a scientific field experiment be set up to test rigorously the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of different badger culling strategies and to provide the evidence on which to base future TB control strategies. The Krebs report recommended a randomised block approach comprising three treatments: reactive culling, proactive culling, and no culling. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, as recommended by Krebs and designed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, commenced in 1998.
Previous control strategies included Gassing (1975–82), Clean Ring (1982–86), Interim (1986 to 1998) and Live Test (1994–96) further details are available in the Krebs Report Chapter 5 page 76. None of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
11 Dec 2003: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in (a) badgers and (b) cattle in England during (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005. [142469]
11 Dec 2003: Column 541W
Mr. Bradshaw: It is only possible to make estimates of the incidence of bovine TB in cattle based on previous years. Unfortunately, data for both 2002 and 2001 cannot be easily compared to earlier years. This is because, in 2001, TB testing was largely suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and in 2002 much of the testing effort was aimed at high-risk herds and those with overdue tests. Nevertheless, early indications suggest that the reduced levels of testing in 2001 have not substantially altered the underlying historical trend of confirmed TB incidents in cattle, which continues to rise at a yearly average rate of about 18 per cent. for new herd incidents.
No estimates have been made regarding the incidence of TB in badgers.
11 Dec 2003: Column 541W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the level of funding to laboratories for the examination of bovine samples for M. bovis on the time scale for the testing of samples. [142338]
Mr. Bradshaw: Culture of samples for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) takes at least six weeks. A backlog of samples built up at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.
An extra £650,000 funding was made available in 2003–04 to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) to tackle the backlog. So far in 2003, the monthly throughput at VLA of bovine samples for culture has been more than three times higher than in 2002. Fresh samples are now being processed as they arrive at VLA and we are further reducing the backlog of frozen samples.
At the end of October 2003 there were 1,781 tissue samples awaiting culture at the VLA (down from 6,329 at the end of March 2003). Nearly all of the outstanding samples (1,712) are from carcases that showed no visible lesions at post-mortem, and thus not causing a delay in lifting movement restrictions from farms.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
10 Dec 2003: Column 522W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Department has to evaluate the impact on efficacy of culling of the use of anaesthesia in badger setts prior to lethal gassing. [141081]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has no plans to evaluate the impact on efficacy of culling of the use of anaesthesia in badger setts prior to lethal gassing. The gassing of badgers has been discounted as a culling option because it is considered to be inhumane.
10 Dec 2003: Column 522W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive in badger setts. [141394]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not known precisely how long M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may survive in badger setts. The organism is killed by exposure to ultra violet light and extremes of temperature and humidity, as well as the growth of other bacteria and fungi. The lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity conditions found inside a badger sett would favour the survival of M. bovis.
10 Dec 2003: Column 522W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what predictions were made, in explanatory material made available to farmers by her Department as to the percentage of badgers which were to be killed by culling teams engaged in the Krebs trials. [141993]
Mr. Bradshaw: In their first report, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, reported that informal estimates suggested a capture rate of up to 80 per cent. could be expected using cage traps alone. Information made available to farmers by leaflet, refers to “Proactive culling as many badgers as possible from a whole area (about 80 per cent.)” based, in part, on post-culling assessments of trapping efficiency. These assessments were based on field signs and are therefore largely
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
subjective. They are, however, carried out by experienced personnel and give a useful indication of the extent of badger population reduction in proactively culled areas.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on whether significant damage is caused by badgers to ground nesting birds. [142460]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are known to predate on ground nesting birds, although such predation is likely to be largely opportunistic. The impact of badger predation on bird populations has not been specifically quantified, but is not thought to significantly affect populations nationally. Locally, however, the situation may be different.
Bird remains are typically found in about 7.5 per cent. of badger dung in the U.K., and diet studies confirm that badgers eat eggs, nestlings and adult birds. These studies are unable to distinguish between scavenged and killed birds, and do not quantify the importance of birds in the badger diet.
Defra is currently funding research aimed at providing a scientifically vigorous assessment of the importance of badger predation for ground nesting birds. The project involves a review of current knowledge and intensive field investigations to assess to extent of predation by badgers. The project, which is being undertaken by the Central Science Laboratory, will report its findings in March 2005.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the welfare implications are for badgers infected with TB; at what stage in the disease they suffer; and how long that suffering can last. [142461]
Mr. Bradshaw: In a study by the Central Science Laboratory and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, TB as a cause of death accounted for less than 7 per cent. of badgers found dead. It is difficult to make objective assessment of whether these animals suffer. Typically, individuals may live for many months or even years while infected, showing no overt signs of clinical illness and maintaining normal body weights. Infected female badgers often give birth and successfully rear litters. However, post mortem findings where advanced pathological changes have occurred, particularly in the lungs, indicate that during the final stages of disease there would undoubtedly be an effect on the quality of life of such an animal. This stage is thought to last for a few weeks at most.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times in each of the reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trials badger clearances were carried out. [142463]
Mr. Bradshaw: For each of the 10 reactive treatment areas the number of individual clearance operations is detailed in the following table.
Reactive trial area Number of reactive operations completed(12)
A1 10
B1 10
C1 20
D1 4
E1 (13)10
F3 10
G1 7
H1 4
11 3
J2 0
(12) Individual reactive operations vary in the extent of the geographical area involved and the number of herd notifications for reactive culling included
(13) Includes an operation halfway through the culling period at the time of suspension of reactive culling on 4 November 2003.
10 Dec 2003 : Column 524W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on (a) the adequacy of the resources allocated to the reactive cull component of the Government's randomised badger culling trials and (b) the adequacy of the number of personnel allocated, with particular reference to clerical personnel with sufficient skills, training and experience. [142464]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) It has at times been difficult for MAFF/Defra to carry out reactive culling in response to a herd breakdown as quickly as the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) anticipated its First Report. Resource limitations, including difficulties inherent in the recruitment and retention of appropriately skilled staff, have played a part. Difficulties became apparent in 2002 when, in effect, the impact of the suspension of TB testing in 2001 due to foot and mouth disease meant that two years’ worth of breakdown notifications required reactive culling, alongside the servicing of culling in the proactive areas. Defra has worked hard since FMD to meet the ISG's expectations both in terms of the time between breakdown and culling, and the number of operations completed. The ISG has helped by making some pragmatic decisions by assisting with priorities and by setting realistic, yet challenging, targets which Defra has either met or exceeded.
(b) It is considered that the level of clerical or administrative support has been adequate and not had any a diverse impact on the fieldwork for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long a reactive culling area must be maintained for statistically valid data to be obtained from the trial in that area. [142465]
Mr. Bradshaw: As set out in the Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), the design of the trial is based on accumulating a maximum of 50 triplet years of data to provide a probability exceeding 90 per cent. of detecting a 20 per cent. effect. The ISG committed itself at the outset, to carry out an initial analysis of the data once 100 new breakdowns had been accumulated in trial areas, and to repeat the analysis at six-month intervals.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many reactive culling areas were designated during the randomised badger culling trials; and what the dates were on which the trials commenced in each area. [142466]
10 Dec 2003 : Column 525W
Mr. Bradshaw: Within each of the 10 reactive treatment areas the number of individual culling areas varies from 0 to 20. I attach a table that presents the requested data clearly.
Reactive Trial Area Number of reactive operations completed(14) Date of Field Operations(15)
A1 10 3 July 2000
B1 10 24 May 1999
C1 20 15 May 2000
D1 4 25 August 2003
E1 (16)10 17 June 2002
F3 10 29 July 2002
G1 7 19 August 2002
H1 4 15 January 2003
11 3 16 May 2003
J2 0 -
(14) Individual reactive operations vary in the extent of the geographical area involved and the number of herd notifications for reactive culling included
(15) Date that traps are first set to catch badgers
(16) Includes an operation halfway through the culling period at the time of suspension of reactive culling on 4 November 2003
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what concerns Professor Bourne has raised with her on the effect of delays in obtaining culture test results for bovine samples on management of the randomised badger culling trials. [142337]
Mr. Bradshaw: Professor Bourne wrote to the then Parliamentary Secretary (Commons), Mr. Morley, on 9 May 2003 enclosing a number of reports including one reviewing the implementation of the reactive strategy in the randomised badger culling trial. This pointed out that clearance of the TB testing backlog, caused by the suspension of testing during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak, had overwhelmed culture facilities and contributed to delays in the notification of TB herd breakdowns that triggered reactive culling operations. The paper brought the concerns of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB to the Minister's attention but concentrated on advising the Department on what it could do to improve notification and reactive response times.
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the projected expenditure is by her Department for the next five years on developing vaccines for protecting (a) bovine animals and (b) badgers against TB infection. [141967]
Mr. Bradshaw: The content and funding for the future TB research programme is currently under discussion within the Department and is taking account of external scientific advice. TB vaccine development is likely to form an increasingly important part of the research programme.
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure since 1973 by her Department and its predecessors has been on developing vaccines for protecting (a) bovine animals and (b) badgers against TB infection. [141977]
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Bradshaw: Work on vaccinating badgers against TB was carried out by MAFF from 1983 to 1990, but the figures for expenditure at that time are not available.
Much of the development work involves developing candidate vaccines. This work applies equally to vaccines for cattle and badgers so the figures do not differentiate between the two species.
The major effort on TB vaccine research, in relation to cattle and badgers, started in 1998, subsequent to the Krebs Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers. The following table shows vaccine related research costs for the financial years 1998–99 to date.
£
Financial Year Vaccine related research cost
1998–99 825,942
1999–2000 1,352,204
2000–01 1,415,287
2001–02 1,505,887
2002–03 1,495,314
2003–04 1,618,819
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bovine animals were compulsorily purchased and slaughtered as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998. [142456]
Mr. Bradshaw: The number of cattle slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998 is set out in the following table:
Cattle slaughtered(17)
1994 2,773
1995 3,451
1996 3,881
1997 3,760
1998 6,083
Total 19,948
(17) TB Reactors plus dangerous contacts. Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 1998
Source: The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bovine animals have been compulsorily purchased and slaughtered as a result of TB infection since 1998. [142458]
10 Dec 2003 : Column 527W
Mr. Bradshaw: The number of cattle slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1999 and 2002 is set out in the following table:
Cattle slaughtered(18)
1999 6,772
2000 8,353
2001 5,916
2002 (19)22,886
Total 43,927
(18) TB Reactors plus dangerous contacts. Source: The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 2002
(19) In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Department has to evaluate the impact on efficacy of culling of the use of anaesthesia in badger setts prior to lethal gassing. [141081]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has no plans to evaluate the impact on efficacy of culling of the use of anaesthesia in badger setts prior to lethal gassing. The gassing of badgers has been discounted as a culling option because it is considered to be inhumane.
10 Dec 2003: Column 522W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive in badger setts. [141394]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not known precisely how long M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may survive in badger setts. The organism is killed by exposure to ultra violet light and extremes of temperature and humidity, as well as the growth of other bacteria and fungi. The lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity conditions found inside a badger sett would favour the survival of M. bovis.
10 Dec 2003: Column 522W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what predictions were made, in explanatory material made available to farmers by her Department as to the percentage of badgers which were to be killed by culling teams engaged in the Krebs trials. [141993]
Mr. Bradshaw: In their first report, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, reported that informal estimates suggested a capture rate of up to 80 per cent. could be expected using cage traps alone. Information made available to farmers by leaflet, refers to “Proactive culling as many badgers as possible from a whole area (about 80 per cent.)” based, in part, on post-culling assessments of trapping efficiency. These assessments were based on field signs and are therefore largely
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
subjective. They are, however, carried out by experienced personnel and give a useful indication of the extent of badger population reduction in proactively culled areas.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on whether significant damage is caused by badgers to ground nesting birds. [142460]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are known to predate on ground nesting birds, although such predation is likely to be largely opportunistic. The impact of badger predation on bird populations has not been specifically quantified, but is not thought to significantly affect populations nationally. Locally, however, the situation may be different.
Bird remains are typically found in about 7.5 per cent. of badger dung in the U.K., and diet studies confirm that badgers eat eggs, nestlings and adult birds. These studies are unable to distinguish between scavenged and killed birds, and do not quantify the importance of birds in the badger diet.
Defra is currently funding research aimed at providing a scientifically vigorous assessment of the importance of badger predation for ground nesting birds. The project involves a review of current knowledge and intensive field investigations to assess to extent of predation by badgers. The project, which is being undertaken by the Central Science Laboratory, will report its findings in March 2005.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the welfare implications are for badgers infected with TB; at what stage in the disease they suffer; and how long that suffering can last. [142461]
Mr. Bradshaw: In a study by the Central Science Laboratory and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, TB as a cause of death accounted for less than 7 per cent. of badgers found dead. It is difficult to make objective assessment of whether these animals suffer. Typically, individuals may live for many months or even years while infected, showing no overt signs of clinical illness and maintaining normal body weights. Infected female badgers often give birth and successfully rear litters. However, post mortem findings where advanced pathological changes have occurred, particularly in the lungs, indicate that during the final stages of disease there would undoubtedly be an effect on the quality of life of such an animal. This stage is thought to last for a few weeks at most.
10 Dec 2003: Column 523W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times in each of the reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trials badger clearances were carried out. [142463]
Mr. Bradshaw: For each of the 10 reactive treatment areas the number of individual clearance operations is detailed in the following table.
Reactive trial area Number of reactive operations completed(12)
A1 10
B1 10
C1 20
D1 4
E1 (13)10
F3 10
G1 7
H1 4
11 3
J2 0
(12) Individual reactive operations vary in the extent of the geographical area involved and the number of herd notifications for reactive culling included
(13) Includes an operation halfway through the culling period at the time of suspension of reactive culling on 4 November 2003.
10 Dec 2003 : Column 524W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on (a) the adequacy of the resources allocated to the reactive cull component of the Government's randomised badger culling trials and (b) the adequacy of the number of personnel allocated, with particular reference to clerical personnel with sufficient skills, training and experience. [142464]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) It has at times been difficult for MAFF/Defra to carry out reactive culling in response to a herd breakdown as quickly as the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) anticipated its First Report. Resource limitations, including difficulties inherent in the recruitment and retention of appropriately skilled staff, have played a part. Difficulties became apparent in 2002 when, in effect, the impact of the suspension of TB testing in 2001 due to foot and mouth disease meant that two years’ worth of breakdown notifications required reactive culling, alongside the servicing of culling in the proactive areas. Defra has worked hard since FMD to meet the ISG's expectations both in terms of the time between breakdown and culling, and the number of operations completed. The ISG has helped by making some pragmatic decisions by assisting with priorities and by setting realistic, yet challenging, targets which Defra has either met or exceeded.
(b) It is considered that the level of clerical or administrative support has been adequate and not had any a diverse impact on the fieldwork for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long a reactive culling area must be maintained for statistically valid data to be obtained from the trial in that area. [142465]
Mr. Bradshaw: As set out in the Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), the design of the trial is based on accumulating a maximum of 50 triplet years of data to provide a probability exceeding 90 per cent. of detecting a 20 per cent. effect. The ISG committed itself at the outset, to carry out an initial analysis of the data once 100 new breakdowns had been accumulated in trial areas, and to repeat the analysis at six-month intervals.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many reactive culling areas were designated during the randomised badger culling trials; and what the dates were on which the trials commenced in each area. [142466]
10 Dec 2003 : Column 525W
Mr. Bradshaw: Within each of the 10 reactive treatment areas the number of individual culling areas varies from 0 to 20. I attach a table that presents the requested data clearly.
Reactive Trial Area Number of reactive operations completed(14) Date of Field Operations(15)
A1 10 3 July 2000
B1 10 24 May 1999
C1 20 15 May 2000
D1 4 25 August 2003
E1 (16)10 17 June 2002
F3 10 29 July 2002
G1 7 19 August 2002
H1 4 15 January 2003
11 3 16 May 2003
J2 0 -
(14) Individual reactive operations vary in the extent of the geographical area involved and the number of herd notifications for reactive culling included
(15) Date that traps are first set to catch badgers
(16) Includes an operation halfway through the culling period at the time of suspension of reactive culling on 4 November 2003
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what concerns Professor Bourne has raised with her on the effect of delays in obtaining culture test results for bovine samples on management of the randomised badger culling trials. [142337]
Mr. Bradshaw: Professor Bourne wrote to the then Parliamentary Secretary (Commons), Mr. Morley, on 9 May 2003 enclosing a number of reports including one reviewing the implementation of the reactive strategy in the randomised badger culling trial. This pointed out that clearance of the TB testing backlog, caused by the suspension of testing during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak, had overwhelmed culture facilities and contributed to delays in the notification of TB herd breakdowns that triggered reactive culling operations. The paper brought the concerns of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB to the Minister's attention but concentrated on advising the Department on what it could do to improve notification and reactive response times.
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the projected expenditure is by her Department for the next five years on developing vaccines for protecting (a) bovine animals and (b) badgers against TB infection. [141967]
Mr. Bradshaw: The content and funding for the future TB research programme is currently under discussion within the Department and is taking account of external scientific advice. TB vaccine development is likely to form an increasingly important part of the research programme.
10 Dec 2003: Column 525W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure since 1973 by her Department and its predecessors has been on developing vaccines for protecting (a) bovine animals and (b) badgers against TB infection. [141977]
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Bradshaw: Work on vaccinating badgers against TB was carried out by MAFF from 1983 to 1990, but the figures for expenditure at that time are not available.
Much of the development work involves developing candidate vaccines. This work applies equally to vaccines for cattle and badgers so the figures do not differentiate between the two species.
The major effort on TB vaccine research, in relation to cattle and badgers, started in 1998, subsequent to the Krebs Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers. The following table shows vaccine related research costs for the financial years 1998–99 to date.
£
Financial Year Vaccine related research cost
1998–99 825,942
1999–2000 1,352,204
2000–01 1,415,287
2001–02 1,505,887
2002–03 1,495,314
2003–04 1,618,819
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bovine animals were compulsorily purchased and slaughtered as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998. [142456]
Mr. Bradshaw: The number of cattle slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998 is set out in the following table:
Cattle slaughtered(17)
1994 2,773
1995 3,451
1996 3,881
1997 3,760
1998 6,083
Total 19,948
(17) TB Reactors plus dangerous contacts. Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 1998
Source: The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer
10 Dec 2003: Column 526W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bovine animals have been compulsorily purchased and slaughtered as a result of TB infection since 1998. [142458]
10 Dec 2003 : Column 527W
Mr. Bradshaw: The number of cattle slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1999 and 2002 is set out in the following table:
Cattle slaughtered(18)
1999 6,772
2000 8,353
2001 5,916
2002 (19)22,886
Total 43,927
(18) TB Reactors plus dangerous contacts. Source: The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 2002
(19) In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Parliamentary Questions
8 Dec 2003: Column 210W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of depositing infectious tubercular material sufficient to cause infection in cattle on open pasture and other areas to which cattle have access. [141078]
Mr. Bradshaw: Although it is likely that badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of infecting cattle, the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB. Other research investigates the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. These form part of a broad programme or research designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.
8 Dec 2003: Column 210W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what badger latrines are; and what relevance they have in the spread of M.bovis to cattle. [141079]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badger latrines are areas where the animals habitually defecate. Typically, they comprise several small pits 10 to 20 cm diameter containing badger droppings, usually contained within an area up to five metres across. Latrines are found within and on the periphery of badger social group territories. Badgers also urinate around latrines and smear their scent on the ground. Badgers infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may excrete the organism in their faeces and/or urine. Therefore if badger latrines occur on pasture, or in areas frequented by cattle they may pose a risk of M. bovis infection for cattle.
8 Dec 2003: Column 210W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how adult badgers infected with M. bovis transmit the infection to their young. [141080]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is possible that a sow badger infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may transmit infection to her cubs through contaminated milk, or by aerosol in the confines of an underground nest chamber. Badgers may also infect each other by bite wounding, either during play fighting or through more aggressive territorial and mating encounters.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated incidence of TB in (a) badgers and (b) cattle in England was in the last year for which figures are available. [141082]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data is available on TB in badgers in England is the period 6 October 1998 to 5 October 1999. Table 1 shows the number of badger carcasses tested and found positive for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) in this period, while Table 2 shows the incidence of TB in cattle for the same period.
Table 1: Badgers tested for M. bovis in England: 6 October 1998 to 5 October 1999(4) Number and percentage
Number of badger carcasses tested 1,038
Number of badger carcasses M. bovis positive 104
Percentage(5) 10
(4) Data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and the associated current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey is not available. Data is sourced from the previous RTA survey and sources other than from Badger removal operations, and pre-dates the current RTA survey and RBCT.
(5) It is not possible to provide incidence rates for TB in badgers in the absence of data about the date badgers became infected.
Table 2: TB herd incidence in England: 6 October 1998
to 5 October 1999(6) Incidence of TB in cattle
Tests on unrestricted herds 28,353
Confirmed new incidents 702
Incidence(7) 2.5
(6) Data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on 1 December 2003.
(7) Percentage.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions have been drawn on routes of transmission from post-mortem examination of badgers for TB in the past 10 years. [141084]
Mr. Bradshaw: Post-mortem examination of badgers is used as part of the process of determining if badgers are infected with Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis. Post-mortem findings do not provide a basis for ascribing the source or route of infection. However, the location of visible lesions may be indicative of the route of infection e.g. lesions in the lung tissue would suggest a respiratory route of infection. The distribution of lesions in badgers examined by Defra from 1990–99 indicates that infection may have occurred through the respiratory or oral routes, as well as through infection from bite wounds.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England; and what assessment has been made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size. [141085]
Mr. Bradshaw: No estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England, and therefore no estimate can be made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Defra is funding a project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem. The results will shed more light on the ecological interaction of badgers with other species, which share their environment.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage of badgers which can reasonably be expected to be killed in a defined area when the culling teams rely solely on trapping. [141088]
Mr. Bradshaw: In the absence of any means to estimate badger populations accurately, either prior to or post culling, it is always going to be difficult to make such assessments. In the randomised badger culling trial, post-culling surveys have indicated that, in the best conditions and allowing for a proportion of trap-shy animals, about 80 per cent. of the population may be culled using cage traps. In less than optimal conditions this figure can be substantially lower.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the main TB lesions have been found on those badgers which have been subject to a post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years. [141393]
Mr. Bradshaw: Information is available for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999. For this period of the 3,682 badgers that were positive for bovine TB, 1,228 displayed gross TB lesions.
The following table classifies the occurrence of the lesion locations.
Location of lesion Occurrence
Abdominal nodes 64
Head nodes 330
Chest nodes 532
Skeletal nodes 223
Chest cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes 418
Abdominal cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes 191
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken by the Department when its badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with. [141972]
Mr. Bradshaw: When badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with, traps are replaced or resited or, alternatively, more discrete trapping sites are selected. Incidents of trapping interference are reported to the police.
8 Dec 2003: Column 213W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many field staff, as full-time equivalents, are employed by her Department both directly and on contract, on randomised badger culling trials; and how many were employed in (a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [141974]
Mr. Bradshaw: The average number of field staff employed on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial in the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit by financial year is as follows.
8 Dec 2003: Column 213W
Number
1998–99 62
1999–2000 90
2000–01 110
2001–02 136
2002–03 127
2003–04 133
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with FMD. Over the first three years of the Trial contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with CSL and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, was always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
8 Dec 2003: Column 214W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Department has given to farmers on the prevention of TB in cattle, in respect of the height of mineral and feed troughs to avoid badgers gaining access to them. [141086]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has provided guidance to farmers on how to reduce the risk of cattle being exposed to Mycobacterium bovis in a free booklet entitled “TB in Cattle—Reducing Risk”.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Steps include ensuring mineral blocks and lips of water troughs are raised at least 80 cm (30 inches) off the ground, fencing off badger latrines and setts, not feeding cattle in troughs at pasture and avoiding the use of grass from badger latrines and field margins when cutting silage.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what European Union funds are available to farmers on whose cattle TB restrictions are imposed; how much is payable per head of cattle; whether match funding is required; and what claims the Department has made. [141087]
Mr. Bradshaw: We are not aware of any EU funds payable to farmers under TB restrictions. The Government currently pays farmers 100 per cent. of market value for cattle removed under TB control measures.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has analysed the (a) number and (b) proportion of farms where cattle with an autumn TB breakdown (i) have subsequently gone clear and (ii) have an increasing incidence of TB through the winter; and whether the first group of cases occurs in areas with a high level of TB infection in badgers. [141380]
Mr. Bradshaw: This information cannot be provided, except at disproportionate cost. There are seasonal trends in the detection of incidents of bovine TB but it is impossible to determine from currently available information whether these trends reflect seasonally in exposure to the disease.
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, alongside the Road Traffic Accident survey and the TB99 epidemiological questionnaire, is providing data about the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas of high incidence in cattle herds, for analysis by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of TB infection in cattle in the national herd her Department has assessed as being acceptable. [141382]
Mr. Bradshaw: A possible long-term objective in terms of control of bovine TB could be to achieve Officially Tuberculosis Free status as defined by the EU and the OIE. In the short term, Defra is seeking to arrest the geographic spread of the disease, and is shortly to consult on proposals designed to do this. Defra is also soon to consult on a new TB Strategy, looking at the roles of industry and Government, as well as considering what might be achievable in terms of TB control over next 10 years.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle reported to be infected with TB are believed to have acquired infection from cattle-to-cattle transmission; and what proportion are believed to have acquired their infection (a) directly and (b) indirectly from badgers. [141383]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial was designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB (as well assessing the effectiveness of two badger culling options as control measures). Other research includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. This forms part of a broad programme designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.
In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of polymerase chain reaction testing instead of culture testing for the confirmation of TB in bovine samples. [141385]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is collaborating with the Imperial College in the design and optimisation of a Mycobacterium bovis-specific polymerase chain reaction (or PCR) assay for the detection of M. bovis DMA in bovine TB lesions. Any new laboratory test is likely to complement rather than replace existing culture techniques.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason hauliers are prohibited under certain circumstances from collecting full loads of TB reactors, comprising animals from different farms, for delivery to slaughterhouses. [141386]
Mr. Bradshaw: Any animal movement constitutes a health risk. Under post-FMD movement controls, Defra allowed a round of collections of animals from different farms only if all of the farms involved each had multiple pickup approval.
There are farms which do not want approval or which cannot meet approval requirements. Where farms do not want approval or cannot meet approval requirements, the haulier must transport TB reactor animals direct to the slaughterhouse.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the differences are between TB control programmes in (a) the UK and (b) Ireland. [141387]
Mr. Bradshaw: The UK broadly adopts the TB control measures set out by EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. It is understood that the arrangements in the Republic of Ireland are similar.
The Republic of Ireland has a policy for limited culling of badgers for disease control purposes, whereas the UK does not.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the failure of the reactive component of the randomised badger culling trials. [141388]
8 Dec 2003 : Column 217W
Mr. Bradshaw: We have no plans to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the suspension of badger culling in reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trial. The payment of consequential loss to producers falls within the definition of State Aids and cannot therefore be paid without the agreement of the EU Commission.
There has always been an element of risk in participation in the trial, although the majority of farmers might have presumed that culling badgers would only help reduce the risk of TB in their herds. Nevertheless all farmers took part in the trial on a voluntary basis, having had the choice to opt out totally, agree to survey operations only, or to surveying and culling operations, and to change their level of involvement at any time.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will prohibit the sale of milk for any purpose from farms under TB restriction. [141390]
Mr. Bradshaw: Pasteurisation is effective in eliminating the risk from Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine TB) in milk. Milk from herds under TB restrictions is permitted to be sold for human consumption after it has been heat treated. Milk hygiene legislation requires that raw milk and raw milk products for direct human consumption are produced from milk from officially TB free herds.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions farmers are advised to take to avoid exposing their cattle to M. bovis infection. [141391]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has provided a significant amount of advice and codes on the health and welfare of livestock. The Defra leaflet, “TB in Cattle - Reducing the Risk” suggests that farmers consider moving to a closed herd system. However, such a system still needs to be combined with other disease prevention measures to reduce risks of disease introduction and spread. Defra has also produced a leaflet “Golden rules for a healthy herd” that gives specific advice on preventative strategies for avoiding introduction of the most important cattle diseases, including TB during restocking.
Defra has also produced a concise list of disease prevention measures, including the need to always know the health status of animals being bought or moved, in the form of a yellow card which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets. It was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002, and is available on the Defra website.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether M. bovis isolates can be characterised to determine its genetic relationship to other isolates by using the technique of DNA fingerprinting; and whether there has been such fingerprinting of TB isolates from cattle and badgers in order to identify epidemiological relationships. [141396]
Mr. Bradshaw: Spoligotyping is used to determine molecular type for all isolates of the bovine tuberculosis bacillus (M. bovis) obtained from badgers and cattle. Variable Number Tandem Repeats (or VNTR), a
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
technique able to subdivide some spoligotypes, is also used. Generally the different strain types of M. bovis that these techniques identify exhibit distinct and probably longstanding geographical clustering. Within each geographical cluster the same strains tend to be found in badgers and cattle. Even where the same strain has been found in two different species in the same locality, it is difficult to deduce the direction of interspecies transmission, how often it occurs, and how much transmission there is between animals of the same species.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the current TB skin test on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid has been in use. [141968]
Mr. Bradshaw: The tuberculin skin test for cattle has been compulsory in Great Britain since 1950. This is the test prescribed by the OIE for international trade, as well as under EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to replace the TB skin test used on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid with a more accurate and sensitive test. [141969]
Mr. Bradshaw: Improved diagnosis of TB in cattle is a major objective of Defra's wide-ranging research programme. The current most promising candidate is the gamma interferon test, a laboratory-based blood test that measures the immune response to M. bovis (the causative agent for bovine TB) of T-cells in cattle blood.
This test was officially recognised by the EU in July 2002, but only for use as a supplement to the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Test (SICCT) in TB affected herds. The test is considered more sensitive than the SICCT, but less specific, meaning that it results in a higher probability of false positives. For this reason, the gamma interferon test cannot be used on its own as a screening test for TB for the time being.
In October 2002, Ministers announced the field evaluation of the gamma interferon test, to assess the potential for its use in GB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases badger traps laid by or on behalf of the Department in TB culling trials have been interfered with or removed without authorisation. [141971]
Mr. Bradshaw: Interference with badger traps laid in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is variable between operations. It is usually quite geographically localised and repetitive within a culling operational area. Management records indicate that—over 116 culling operations, across 19 trial areas, between December 1998 and 10 October 2003, during which 15,666 traps were sited—there were 8,981 individual occasions where a trap was interfered with, and 1,827 individual occasions when a trap was removed.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current status is of research on vaccines suitable for application
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
to (a) badgers and (b) bovine animals to protect against TB infection; and when she expects commercial vaccines will become available. [141976]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra's extensive bovine TB vaccine research programme is aimed at identifying the most effective vaccine candidates and the most appropriate vaccination programmes to reduce the incidence of bovine TB. Depending on the outcome of this research, it will be necessary to gain approval for the selected vaccine or vaccines to be used in cattle or badgers or other susceptible species.
The current situation is that the progress on research on vaccines is broadly in line with the timeline set out in the Krebs report, published in 1997. This estimated:
Years 1–5: Identification of candidate vaccines and development of differential diagnostic tests;
Years 5–10: Experimental investigations of vaccination protocols;
Years 10–15: Field trials.
The current status of research on vaccines was studied by the Independent Scientific Group's Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee who submitted their report to Ministers in July. Ministers, last week, recommended publication of the report and this will be available shortly, both in written form and on the Defra website.
It is not possible at this stage to estimate when commercial vaccines will become available, but discussions with industry are ongoing.
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made by her Department to insurance providers and underwriters on the funding of a joint venture to top up compensation paid for TB reactor cattle above the proposed cut to average market value. [141999]
Mr. Bradshaw: In developing proposals for a fundamental overhaul of our animal disease compensation arrangements, Defra met with representatives of insurance companies earlier in the year to explore a number of different options. It was concluded that "top-up" insurance schemes for loss of high value animals to notifiable animals diseases is not currently a viable option, as the market is not sufficiently developed. Top-up insurance is not set out as a short-term option for compensation for high-value animals in the current consultation on proposals to rationalise compensation for notifiable animal disease control. Under our proposals animals worth significantly more than the average market value can be pre-valued and registered with Defra. In such cases the compensation payable will be equivalent to the registered pre-valuation.
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund average cull-price for TB-infected animals and reactors with an industry levy on (a) milk and (b) beef. [142001]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government is working on proposals for an animal disease levy, which might include TB. The funds raised would be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of compensation for animals which are compulsorily slaughtered. At the moment the option we favour is a levy on live animals
8 Dec 2003: Column 220W
rather than animal products, but no decisions have been taken. We intend to consult on our proposals in the first half of next year.
8 Dec 2003: Column 220W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how maintenance of closed dairy herds protects cattle from TB infection. [142003]
Mr. Bradshaw: Maintaining a closed herd can eliminate the risk of introducing cattle infected with bovine tuberculosis. The risk of spread of infection from nearby herds and wildlife can be reduced by adopting husbandry and biosecurity measures, as described in the freely available Defra booklet "TB in Cattle - Reducing the Risk".
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of depositing infectious tubercular material sufficient to cause infection in cattle on open pasture and other areas to which cattle have access. [141078]
Mr. Bradshaw: Although it is likely that badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of infecting cattle, the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB. Other research investigates the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. These form part of a broad programme or research designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.
8 Dec 2003: Column 210W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what badger latrines are; and what relevance they have in the spread of M.bovis to cattle. [141079]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badger latrines are areas where the animals habitually defecate. Typically, they comprise several small pits 10 to 20 cm diameter containing badger droppings, usually contained within an area up to five metres across. Latrines are found within and on the periphery of badger social group territories. Badgers also urinate around latrines and smear their scent on the ground. Badgers infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may excrete the organism in their faeces and/or urine. Therefore if badger latrines occur on pasture, or in areas frequented by cattle they may pose a risk of M. bovis infection for cattle.
8 Dec 2003: Column 210W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how adult badgers infected with M. bovis transmit the infection to their young. [141080]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is possible that a sow badger infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may transmit infection to her cubs through contaminated milk, or by aerosol in the confines of an underground nest chamber. Badgers may also infect each other by bite wounding, either during play fighting or through more aggressive territorial and mating encounters.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated incidence of TB in (a) badgers and (b) cattle in England was in the last year for which figures are available. [141082]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data is available on TB in badgers in England is the period 6 October 1998 to 5 October 1999. Table 1 shows the number of badger carcasses tested and found positive for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) in this period, while Table 2 shows the incidence of TB in cattle for the same period.
Table 1: Badgers tested for M. bovis in England: 6 October 1998 to 5 October 1999(4) Number and percentage
Number of badger carcasses tested 1,038
Number of badger carcasses M. bovis positive 104
Percentage(5) 10
(4) Data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and the associated current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey is not available. Data is sourced from the previous RTA survey and sources other than from Badger removal operations, and pre-dates the current RTA survey and RBCT.
(5) It is not possible to provide incidence rates for TB in badgers in the absence of data about the date badgers became infected.
Table 2: TB herd incidence in England: 6 October 1998
to 5 October 1999(6) Incidence of TB in cattle
Tests on unrestricted herds 28,353
Confirmed new incidents 702
Incidence(7) 2.5
(6) Data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on 1 December 2003.
(7) Percentage.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions have been drawn on routes of transmission from post-mortem examination of badgers for TB in the past 10 years. [141084]
Mr. Bradshaw: Post-mortem examination of badgers is used as part of the process of determining if badgers are infected with Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis. Post-mortem findings do not provide a basis for ascribing the source or route of infection. However, the location of visible lesions may be indicative of the route of infection e.g. lesions in the lung tissue would suggest a respiratory route of infection. The distribution of lesions in badgers examined by Defra from 1990–99 indicates that infection may have occurred through the respiratory or oral routes, as well as through infection from bite wounds.
8 Dec 2003: Column 211W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England; and what assessment has been made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size. [141085]
Mr. Bradshaw: No estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England, and therefore no estimate can be made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Defra is funding a project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem. The results will shed more light on the ecological interaction of badgers with other species, which share their environment.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage of badgers which can reasonably be expected to be killed in a defined area when the culling teams rely solely on trapping. [141088]
Mr. Bradshaw: In the absence of any means to estimate badger populations accurately, either prior to or post culling, it is always going to be difficult to make such assessments. In the randomised badger culling trial, post-culling surveys have indicated that, in the best conditions and allowing for a proportion of trap-shy animals, about 80 per cent. of the population may be culled using cage traps. In less than optimal conditions this figure can be substantially lower.
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the main TB lesions have been found on those badgers which have been subject to a post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years. [141393]
Mr. Bradshaw: Information is available for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999. For this period of the 3,682 badgers that were positive for bovine TB, 1,228 displayed gross TB lesions.
The following table classifies the occurrence of the lesion locations.
Location of lesion Occurrence
Abdominal nodes 64
Head nodes 330
Chest nodes 532
Skeletal nodes 223
Chest cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes 418
Abdominal cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes 191
8 Dec 2003: Column 212W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken by the Department when its badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with. [141972]
Mr. Bradshaw: When badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with, traps are replaced or resited or, alternatively, more discrete trapping sites are selected. Incidents of trapping interference are reported to the police.
8 Dec 2003: Column 213W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many field staff, as full-time equivalents, are employed by her Department both directly and on contract, on randomised badger culling trials; and how many were employed in (a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [141974]
Mr. Bradshaw: The average number of field staff employed on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial in the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit by financial year is as follows.
8 Dec 2003: Column 213W
Number
1998–99 62
1999–2000 90
2000–01 110
2001–02 136
2002–03 127
2003–04 133
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with FMD. Over the first three years of the Trial contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with CSL and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, was always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
8 Dec 2003: Column 214W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Department has given to farmers on the prevention of TB in cattle, in respect of the height of mineral and feed troughs to avoid badgers gaining access to them. [141086]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has provided guidance to farmers on how to reduce the risk of cattle being exposed to Mycobacterium bovis in a free booklet entitled “TB in Cattle—Reducing Risk”.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Steps include ensuring mineral blocks and lips of water troughs are raised at least 80 cm (30 inches) off the ground, fencing off badger latrines and setts, not feeding cattle in troughs at pasture and avoiding the use of grass from badger latrines and field margins when cutting silage.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what European Union funds are available to farmers on whose cattle TB restrictions are imposed; how much is payable per head of cattle; whether match funding is required; and what claims the Department has made. [141087]
Mr. Bradshaw: We are not aware of any EU funds payable to farmers under TB restrictions. The Government currently pays farmers 100 per cent. of market value for cattle removed under TB control measures.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has analysed the (a) number and (b) proportion of farms where cattle with an autumn TB breakdown (i) have subsequently gone clear and (ii) have an increasing incidence of TB through the winter; and whether the first group of cases occurs in areas with a high level of TB infection in badgers. [141380]
Mr. Bradshaw: This information cannot be provided, except at disproportionate cost. There are seasonal trends in the detection of incidents of bovine TB but it is impossible to determine from currently available information whether these trends reflect seasonally in exposure to the disease.
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, alongside the Road Traffic Accident survey and the TB99 epidemiological questionnaire, is providing data about the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas of high incidence in cattle herds, for analysis by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of TB infection in cattle in the national herd her Department has assessed as being acceptable. [141382]
Mr. Bradshaw: A possible long-term objective in terms of control of bovine TB could be to achieve Officially Tuberculosis Free status as defined by the EU and the OIE. In the short term, Defra is seeking to arrest the geographic spread of the disease, and is shortly to consult on proposals designed to do this. Defra is also soon to consult on a new TB Strategy, looking at the roles of industry and Government, as well as considering what might be achievable in terms of TB control over next 10 years.
8 Dec 2003: Column 215W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle reported to be infected with TB are believed to have acquired infection from cattle-to-cattle transmission; and what proportion are believed to have acquired their infection (a) directly and (b) indirectly from badgers. [141383]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial was designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB (as well assessing the effectiveness of two badger culling options as control measures). Other research includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. This forms part of a broad programme designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.
In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of polymerase chain reaction testing instead of culture testing for the confirmation of TB in bovine samples. [141385]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is collaborating with the Imperial College in the design and optimisation of a Mycobacterium bovis-specific polymerase chain reaction (or PCR) assay for the detection of M. bovis DMA in bovine TB lesions. Any new laboratory test is likely to complement rather than replace existing culture techniques.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason hauliers are prohibited under certain circumstances from collecting full loads of TB reactors, comprising animals from different farms, for delivery to slaughterhouses. [141386]
Mr. Bradshaw: Any animal movement constitutes a health risk. Under post-FMD movement controls, Defra allowed a round of collections of animals from different farms only if all of the farms involved each had multiple pickup approval.
There are farms which do not want approval or which cannot meet approval requirements. Where farms do not want approval or cannot meet approval requirements, the haulier must transport TB reactor animals direct to the slaughterhouse.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the differences are between TB control programmes in (a) the UK and (b) Ireland. [141387]
Mr. Bradshaw: The UK broadly adopts the TB control measures set out by EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. It is understood that the arrangements in the Republic of Ireland are similar.
The Republic of Ireland has a policy for limited culling of badgers for disease control purposes, whereas the UK does not.
8 Dec 2003: Column 216W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the failure of the reactive component of the randomised badger culling trials. [141388]
8 Dec 2003 : Column 217W
Mr. Bradshaw: We have no plans to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the suspension of badger culling in reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trial. The payment of consequential loss to producers falls within the definition of State Aids and cannot therefore be paid without the agreement of the EU Commission.
There has always been an element of risk in participation in the trial, although the majority of farmers might have presumed that culling badgers would only help reduce the risk of TB in their herds. Nevertheless all farmers took part in the trial on a voluntary basis, having had the choice to opt out totally, agree to survey operations only, or to surveying and culling operations, and to change their level of involvement at any time.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will prohibit the sale of milk for any purpose from farms under TB restriction. [141390]
Mr. Bradshaw: Pasteurisation is effective in eliminating the risk from Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine TB) in milk. Milk from herds under TB restrictions is permitted to be sold for human consumption after it has been heat treated. Milk hygiene legislation requires that raw milk and raw milk products for direct human consumption are produced from milk from officially TB free herds.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions farmers are advised to take to avoid exposing their cattle to M. bovis infection. [141391]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has provided a significant amount of advice and codes on the health and welfare of livestock. The Defra leaflet, “TB in Cattle - Reducing the Risk” suggests that farmers consider moving to a closed herd system. However, such a system still needs to be combined with other disease prevention measures to reduce risks of disease introduction and spread. Defra has also produced a leaflet “Golden rules for a healthy herd” that gives specific advice on preventative strategies for avoiding introduction of the most important cattle diseases, including TB during restocking.
Defra has also produced a concise list of disease prevention measures, including the need to always know the health status of animals being bought or moved, in the form of a yellow card which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets. It was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002, and is available on the Defra website.
8 Dec 2003: Column 217W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether M. bovis isolates can be characterised to determine its genetic relationship to other isolates by using the technique of DNA fingerprinting; and whether there has been such fingerprinting of TB isolates from cattle and badgers in order to identify epidemiological relationships. [141396]
Mr. Bradshaw: Spoligotyping is used to determine molecular type for all isolates of the bovine tuberculosis bacillus (M. bovis) obtained from badgers and cattle. Variable Number Tandem Repeats (or VNTR), a
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
technique able to subdivide some spoligotypes, is also used. Generally the different strain types of M. bovis that these techniques identify exhibit distinct and probably longstanding geographical clustering. Within each geographical cluster the same strains tend to be found in badgers and cattle. Even where the same strain has been found in two different species in the same locality, it is difficult to deduce the direction of interspecies transmission, how often it occurs, and how much transmission there is between animals of the same species.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the current TB skin test on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid has been in use. [141968]
Mr. Bradshaw: The tuberculin skin test for cattle has been compulsory in Great Britain since 1950. This is the test prescribed by the OIE for international trade, as well as under EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to replace the TB skin test used on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid with a more accurate and sensitive test. [141969]
Mr. Bradshaw: Improved diagnosis of TB in cattle is a major objective of Defra's wide-ranging research programme. The current most promising candidate is the gamma interferon test, a laboratory-based blood test that measures the immune response to M. bovis (the causative agent for bovine TB) of T-cells in cattle blood.
This test was officially recognised by the EU in July 2002, but only for use as a supplement to the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Test (SICCT) in TB affected herds. The test is considered more sensitive than the SICCT, but less specific, meaning that it results in a higher probability of false positives. For this reason, the gamma interferon test cannot be used on its own as a screening test for TB for the time being.
In October 2002, Ministers announced the field evaluation of the gamma interferon test, to assess the potential for its use in GB.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases badger traps laid by or on behalf of the Department in TB culling trials have been interfered with or removed without authorisation. [141971]
Mr. Bradshaw: Interference with badger traps laid in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is variable between operations. It is usually quite geographically localised and repetitive within a culling operational area. Management records indicate that—over 116 culling operations, across 19 trial areas, between December 1998 and 10 October 2003, during which 15,666 traps were sited—there were 8,981 individual occasions where a trap was interfered with, and 1,827 individual occasions when a trap was removed.
8 Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current status is of research on vaccines suitable for application
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
to (a) badgers and (b) bovine animals to protect against TB infection; and when she expects commercial vaccines will become available. [141976]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra's extensive bovine TB vaccine research programme is aimed at identifying the most effective vaccine candidates and the most appropriate vaccination programmes to reduce the incidence of bovine TB. Depending on the outcome of this research, it will be necessary to gain approval for the selected vaccine or vaccines to be used in cattle or badgers or other susceptible species.
The current situation is that the progress on research on vaccines is broadly in line with the timeline set out in the Krebs report, published in 1997. This estimated:
Years 1–5: Identification of candidate vaccines and development of differential diagnostic tests;
Years 5–10: Experimental investigations of vaccination protocols;
Years 10–15: Field trials.
The current status of research on vaccines was studied by the Independent Scientific Group's Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee who submitted their report to Ministers in July. Ministers, last week, recommended publication of the report and this will be available shortly, both in written form and on the Defra website.
It is not possible at this stage to estimate when commercial vaccines will become available, but discussions with industry are ongoing.
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made by her Department to insurance providers and underwriters on the funding of a joint venture to top up compensation paid for TB reactor cattle above the proposed cut to average market value. [141999]
Mr. Bradshaw: In developing proposals for a fundamental overhaul of our animal disease compensation arrangements, Defra met with representatives of insurance companies earlier in the year to explore a number of different options. It was concluded that "top-up" insurance schemes for loss of high value animals to notifiable animals diseases is not currently a viable option, as the market is not sufficiently developed. Top-up insurance is not set out as a short-term option for compensation for high-value animals in the current consultation on proposals to rationalise compensation for notifiable animal disease control. Under our proposals animals worth significantly more than the average market value can be pre-valued and registered with Defra. In such cases the compensation payable will be equivalent to the registered pre-valuation.
8 Dec 2003: Column 219W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund average cull-price for TB-infected animals and reactors with an industry levy on (a) milk and (b) beef. [142001]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government is working on proposals for an animal disease levy, which might include TB. The funds raised would be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of compensation for animals which are compulsorily slaughtered. At the moment the option we favour is a levy on live animals
8 Dec 2003: Column 220W
rather than animal products, but no decisions have been taken. We intend to consult on our proposals in the first half of next year.
8 Dec 2003: Column 220W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how maintenance of closed dairy herds protects cattle from TB infection. [142003]
Mr. Bradshaw: Maintaining a closed herd can eliminate the risk of introducing cattle infected with bovine tuberculosis. The risk of spread of infection from nearby herds and wildlife can be reduced by adopting husbandry and biosecurity measures, as described in the freely available Defra booklet "TB in Cattle - Reducing the Risk".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)