On Tuesday, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson announced that the English badger cull would not go ahead this year, due to complications including delays following legal challenges and requests by police and the revelation that there are twice as many badgers in the trial areas as had previously been stated.

image expired

The cull had been set to begin within days, though the policy has proven acutely controversial, with up to 85 percent of the public opposing culling. In recent weeks a number of eminent scientists, including some of those whose work has furnished the government with its evidence base, have come out in opposition to the plans, which form part of Defra's bovine TB eradication policy.

Since Paterson’s announcement in the House of Commons earlier this week, it has emerged that government officials were aware that estimates of badger numbers provided by farmers and landowners were inaccurate as early as this summer. The initial estimates were based on the results of surveys conducted in the 1990s and data supplied by cull companies. However, Defra-funded surveys of the cull areas revealed the number of badgers were over double that which had been anticipated.

This was revealed on Wednesday 17th October, just as the final cull preparations were getting underway.  The revelation meant culling 5,000 badgers in the six weeks before the winter closed season would be almost impossible and led to the cull being postponed until summer 2013.

However, prior to Paterson's announcement, cull opponents had managed to table a motion and arrange a debate in the House of Commons. The debate was the result of a government e-petition endorsed by former Queen guitarist and wildlife campaigner Brian May; the petition achieved the 150,000 signatures necessary to secure a parliamentary debate in the space of a few days.

Parliamentary debate

The charged debate was opened by Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, who had tabled a motion calling on the government to abandon its cull policy. Dr Lucas said in her opening speech, "The science is on our side on this issue."

She recommended implementing stricter cattle based control measures and a vaccination programme as soon as possible in order to tackle bovine TB. These recommendations echo those offered by Independent Scientific Group which conducted the Randomised Badger Culling Trials, upon which most government evidence is based. The ISG concluded that culling badgers could offer "no meaningful contribution" to attempts to eradicate bovine TB.

Dr Lucas accused the government of "cherry picking" from the scientific evidence to support its policy. Culling has been criticised by Labour politicians as being formed from “policy-based evidence” instead of being an "evidence-based policy."

The Green MP also pointed to the European Commission's 2011 report which revealed the UK had missed a number of bTB control targets and had a poor record on biosecurity measures.  She said cattle to cattle transmission, thought to be the most significant vector for spread, has yet to be adequately addressed by Defra.

Government ministers have said EU rules currently prevent the more widespread rolling out of vaccination, though Defra’s own experts found "Vaccination in an area could reduce the disease level in the local badger population and thus the risk to local cattle from badger-to-cattle transmission. In addition, vaccination is highly unlikely to have negative effects." In light of this, opponents said the government should look to Europe to request moves on vaccination.

Although there were vocal supporters of the cull in Parliament, as in wider society, they seemed to be significantly outnumbered by detractors. Contrary to the assertions of the government that opposition to the cull has been unscientific and emotionally charged, it was cull supporters who were predominantly accused of making emotional appeals during the debate, including Conservative MP for Shrewsbury, Daniel Kawczynski.

Speakers representing the coalition government were of the opinion that "something must be done" to reduce levels of bovine TB, and that the promise of a 16 percent reduction makes culling a worthwhile venture. However, opponents said the science the government has used to support its policy is unsound. A number of opposition MPs present spoke to represent farmers who remain opposed to the cull and support cattle measures as a means of eradicating the disease, including some from trial areas in Somerset and Gloucestershire.

Government urged to follow Welsh example

Caroline Lucas asked the government to follow the Welsh example; having reviewed the same scientific evidence as the Westminster government earlier this year, the Welsh government opted to follow a programme of vaccination and abandon culling. She said that, while the coalition government’s efforts have stalled, the vaccination programme in Wales' Intensive Action Area is progressing well.

However, former agriculture minister Jim Paice said that the Welsh government’s decision had, in fact, affected the country’s eradication programme and that farmers there risk losing support payments, which cover compensation allowances for bTB. The Badger Trust has questioned the drive for culling in England and Wales, pointing out that ten times as many cattle are killed for diseases other than bovine TB and that compensation is paid for the TB-infected cattle, but not for the others.

He said he was as angry as any cull opponent at the findings of the Commission’s auditors, who said biodiversity measures were poorly implemented and treatment of reactors was a cause for concern in the UK, with missed deadlines on separating animals testing positive for infection, culling of reactor cattle and ear tag swapping all believed to be widespread. The former farming minister said that since this time Defra has ensured controls have improved.

Nevertheless, Meg Munn, MP for Sheffield Heeley, said the cull risked violating the Bern Convention, a legally binding accord under which badgers are a protected species. She also warned Defra's own figures showed the cull would result in a net cost to farmers, costing them more than doing nothing over the nine year period.

Jamie Reed, Labour MP for Copeland, Cumbria, said it is clear there is more than one voice from farmers on the badger cull issue and that, although the NFU was undoubtedly highly complicit in developing cull policy, the government had developed a series of "shambolic" and unworkable proposals and then blamed the union for Tuesday’s U-turn. He said the country's farmers deserve an explanation as to "Why they have been led down the garden path" by the government, repeatedly called the policy "a sop" and reiterated, "This is not the fault of farmers and it is not the fault of the National Farmers' Union."

Labour ministers have reported that newly appointed Environment Secretary Owen Paterson left the debate halfway through, muttering into the microphone that he had "had enough," though Paterson denies this. He claims that he had other meetings and could not stay in the backbench debate.

Thursday’s motion

At the end of the debate, MPs voted on a motion tabled by Dr Lucas. The motion, which urged the government to abandon the policy of badger culling, was voted through by a majority of 119. Defra officials had suggested ministers are "minded" to pursue culling, and that the outcome of the debate, which was not legally binding, would do nothing to alter this. However, in wake of the debate, especially given the weight of public and scientific opinion, sticking to the policy may seem like a worse option that completing the U-turn which was begun on Tuesday.

After the vote, which saw 147 MPs vote to scrap the cull, against 28 in favour of pressing ahead, Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh asked farming minister David Heath if "ministers will respect the democratic will of this parliament?" The minister was not obliged to reply.

The motion tabled for debate on Thursday read:

"This house recognises that significant, independent scientific research has demonstrated that culling badgers will have little effect on reducing the rate of bovine TB; acknowledges that culling may even exacerbate the problem; notes that the e-petition against the current plans for culling passed in a very short period of time the 100,000 figure required to make it eligible for debate in parliament and that it continues to attract impressive levels of support from members of the public; calls on the government to stop any planned or present culling of badgers; and further calls on the government to introduce a vaccination programme and measures to improve biosecurity with immediate effect."

Tweet