A Conservative MP has said that animal welfare should be the subject of greater consideration in the government’s bovine TB control strategy. Yesterday, as farming minister Jim Paice faced down staunch criticism from opposition politicians over his party’s support for a badger cull; part of its bovine TB eradication policy, Simon Hart said “I find it quite frustrating that so little attention has been devoted to the welfare of badgers.” However, Mr Hart said he believes going ahead with a cull would be good for badgers.

Mr Hart’s comments, that killing tuberculosis infected badgers would actually help the general badger population, appear to ignore the most hotly contested aspect of the cull proposals; whether or not the untested ‘free-shooting’ method would work. The government professes to want a cull that is “humane” and “science-led”, criteria on which opponents say free shooting will fail to deliver. Furthermore, if free-shooting goes ahead as planned, experts say the markspeople killing badgers will be unable to verify whether or not the animal they shoot has TB.   

Doubts over cull taking place in 2012

This most controversial measure is still under consideration following a public consultation period which closed last month. However, ministers within the cabinet have objected to a cull going ahead next year; home secretary Theresa May has said that, should a cull go ahead concurrently with the 2012 Olympics, police resources would be overstretched dealing with the two events.

The latest Defra figures reveal a global rise of 8 per cent in bTB breakdowns in the UK compared to last year. Over twenty thousand cattle were slaughtered in the first 7 months of this year as a result of the devastating disease, the situation for some farmers is becoming desperate. Over half of the cattle slaughtered were in the West of England, 20% were in Wales and just 1% were in Scotland.

Last week in the Commons Jim Paice and shadow environment minister Mary Creagh locked horns over the issue; Paice said the farming industry was adamant that "something must be done." Creagh retorted, "You say do something, but surely doing something effective is more useful than just doing something."

Yesterday, Conservative Simon Hart said he believes a cull of disease-riddled animals would help ‘healthy’ badgers thrive. Speaking in Parliament yesterday, as the debate over plans for a pilot cull continued, Mr Hart said, "The Government is absolutely right to draw a line under this and say 'enough is enough'. It is right for farmers, it is right for taxpayers, it is right for cattle, it is right for businesses and it is actually right for badgers. I find it quite frustrating that so little attention has been devoted to the welfare of badgers."

Badger Trust spokesperson Jack Reedy contested Mr Hart’s inference that a cull would affect only sick badgers. Commenting on the address he said, “There is no way to know whether a badger is infected unless it is suffering serious visible sores, which is an extremely advanced stage of disease.” Mr Reedy emphasised that “This would be very rare.” He continued, “The idea that by looking at any other badger you can tell whether it is infected or not is complete nonsense.”

The Labour party, which opposes the coalition’s plans, has attempted to point out flaws in the proposals. Labour MP Andrew Miller, who chairs the Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee, suggested yesterday that a cull along the England-Wales border would be difficult to enforce, as the Welsh Government has postponed its own cull proposals pending a re-evaluation of the evidence.

Labour MP Mary Glindon, who led the debate argued that the coalition’s proposed cull “deviated” from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), upon which Defra based its evidence for the current cull proposals, to such an extent that the two are incomparable. Glindon echoed concerns raised by Natural England as part of its submission to the cull consultation that a farmer-led cull would not run in line with Defra’s specified criteria. Nevertheless, Mr Paice repeated that the science was sound and that trial culls could be expected to deliver a 16 per cent reduction in TB if they are carried out.

Mr Paice continued saying, "first, we have addressed the costs issue by proposing that farmers do the work; it is up to them. The decision whether it is worth it for farmers is not for the Government to make; it is for the individual farmers. Secondly, we have clearly stipulated that we will expect those groups of farmers to tell us what they will do to minimise perturbation." He believed that the applications for the cull would be for an area of around 300 sq km and that farmers would be encouraged to bring forward hard boundaries which badgers could not cross. He also said that "We anticipate that about 1,000 to 1,500 badgers would be killed, as a total over the four years, for every 150 sq km area".