115. There is great and growing concern at the position of farmers experiencing herd breakdowns outside the culling trial areas. These numbers are increasing with the recent rapid escalation of bovine tuberculosis in the national herd, so that only some 50 to 60 per cent of the area of England and Wales suffering contiguous and repeat herd breakdowns will be recruited as part of a triplet.[349] Some witnesses recommended that the Government take additional action in the short term to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Judging by Mr Brown's speech to the NFU Annual Conference in February, it is evident that the Minister is giving serious consideration to the development of such alternative strategies. He and his deputy, Mr Rooker, appear to have a completely open mind on what these strategies might be. In answering a parliamentary question, Mr Rooker said "We are willing to consider additional action which could usefully complement existing measures. Among the ideas being considered at present are more rapid responses to TB incidents, more comprehensive local testing, local badger culling outside the trial areas, and better advice to farmers on protecting the health status of cattle herds".[350] He told us that he was expecting to receive advice on this before the end of the closed season (30 April).[351] Ironically, the need for the Government to take short-term action has been made acute by the slippage in MAFF's timetable for implementing the culling triplets, and the collapse in morale among English and Welsh beef and dairy farmers suffering herd breakdowns. Broadly three alternative strategies were outlined to us: no action; additional proactive and/or reactive badger culling; and additional tuberculin testing of cattle, with reactive culling of the wildlife reservoir.

116. In his report to MAFF, Professor Krebs considered much the same problem, although the options as he saw them were respectively no action; reactive or proactive culling; and extending the trial to the affected area.[352] His Group's conclusion was that no further action should be taken in areas outside the culling trial, but with the experts overseeing the cull (the Bourne Group) retaining the right to recruit further areas into the culling trial if deemed necessary. Krebs concluded that proactive or reactive culling unconnected with the trial should not be considered, for two reasons. In the case of reactive culling, the aim was to prevent repeat and contiguous breakdowns, and, as the worst affected areas were already the focus of the culling trial, introducing reactive culling to these lesser affected areas would become ineffective over time in terms of the number of herd breakdowns prevented. Of course, this argument has now been overtaken by events as bovine TB has continued to spread. On proactive culling, the Krebs report commented merely that carrying this out "on a much larger scale than the experimental area is neither desirable nor feasible".[353] This view was endorsed by both Professor Krebs[354] and Professor Bourne[355] in their oral evidence, on the grounds that the Government would be using a treatment with neither proven effectiveness nor adequate scientific rationale. This would remain the case until conclusive results were available from the culling trial. Professor Bourne also argued that "it could well compromise where we place our trial areas and the randomisation process associated with it".[356] On a practical note, Dr Woodroffe warned that "the message would go out there that culling badgers was the thing to do and we would find it very difficult to defend our controls".[357]

117. This position has been challenged by Professor Stephen Harris of University of Bristol. Professor Harris has been the leading advocate of 'one-off' proactive culling of badgers, where setts have a history of chronic bovine tuberculosis infection. He has argued, although it is not clear on what basis, that since these areas are already well known, one-off proactive culling focussed on these setts could permit badger populations in other regions to remain largely untouched. Furthermore, illegal culling by farmers would be likely to fall as the farming community recognised the robust nature of the approach, while one-off proactive culling based on social groups (setts) rather than arbitrary squares (Krebs) or circles (Bourne) would be more effective in the long term. His comments have been taken by witnesses as applying to areas outside the culling trial only, rather than as the alternative to the trial itself which he clearly intends. Some farmers' groups find his policy attractive because it seems to offer an instant solution.[358] The NFBG, on the other hand, condemn it on scientific, practical, legal, financial and ethical grounds.[359] Regrettably, Professor Harris was unable to accept our invitation to discuss his ideas with us in more detail or to provide written evidence to our inquiry.

118. One variant of this option is to increase the number of triplets in the culling trial. This was favoured by the CLA, who believed that the number of triplets "should at least be doubled" to include all 10km squares where there have been more than 6-8 breakdowns per square,[360] and the NFU who argued that "the bigger the number of trials the more robust the answers will be and the quicker we are likely to find results".[361] The NFU also put forward a strategy for what they termed "small satellite outbreaks"[362] of bovine tuberculosis, areas which would be too small to be the focus of a culling triplet, even if extra resources were found to extend the trial. For such areas, the NFU proposed the following action. When an outbreak is first recorded, all holdings adjoining the affected farm should have their stock tested within a two month period. Stock on all farms should be tested again four months after the first test. In the event of cattle testing positive, a wildlife survey of the affected farms should be carried out, using the TB99 form. The purpose would be to pinpoint the wildlife reservoir responsible for the infection. In the event of a third breakdown, a reactive cull of the "most likely cause of [wildlife] infection" should take place. Mr Brian Jennings of the NFU described the rationale behind this approach: "firstly, to get a clear idea as to the scale of the outbreak and, secondly, to try to identify at an early stage where the epicentre of the outbreak is ... all we are trying to do [is] to identify the most likely cause of infection and then to remove the source. Unless you do that there is always the danger of this centre becoming larger and larger and larger".[363]

119. In assessing the need for short-term action outside the culling trial zone, we have been guided by four principles. First, any short-term strategy must not compromise the scientific validity of the ongoing culling trial. Secondly, the strategy for areas outside the culling trial must not reduce levels of funding assigned to the culling trial, or any other element of the Krebs strategy. Thirdly, any action taken must be cost-effective and efficient in its use of personnel, and must be capable of ameliorating the rate of herd breakdowns in the affected area. Fourthly, such action must be fully consonant with the Government's stated aim of developing a sustainable strategy for the control of bovine tuberculosis.

120. In view of these principles, and taking account of evidence from Professor Krebs and the Bourne Group, we recommend that, at present, no additional action should be taken outside the trial area. Our decision is based on the following considerations. First, the current financial constraints placed upon MAFF make it highly likely that any additional action would divert valuable resources of finance and personnel away from the existing trial, leading to further delays in its actioning and an inevitable postponement in the publication of results. Secondly, there is as yet no categorical evidence to support the proposition that culling has any effect on the rate of herd breakdowns. However, we consider that aspects of the NFU's proposals offer a positive and constructive way forward for tuberculous zones outside the trial area, and that a policy based on these proposals could assist in rebuilding the confidence of beef and dairy producers in these zones. We therefore urge the Government to give serious consideration to the NFU's case, with a view to introducing a policy for the control of localised bovine tuberculosis outbreaks in areas outside the trial within the next twelve months.

Cattle passports

121. There is one further measure which the Government might take immediately which would have no impact on the trial but would offer much wanted assistance to farmers. As a result of the BSE situation, MAFF has now established the British Cattle Movement Service at Workington which issues passports for all cattle in order to monitor their movements throughout the country. MAFF informed us that "in order to improve the effectiveness of tracing cattle moved on or off holdings with TB breakdowns, so that herds at potential risk may also be tested, enhancements to the MAFF Animal Health and Cattle Tracing System databases are planned."[364] This will help MAFF, but many witnesses also raised with us the possibility that the passport system could be used to give more information to farmers when purchasing cattle. The BSE problem has led to increased movement of cattle within the UK (Mr Rooker declared that "cattle whizz round this country in a way that is just unbelievable"[365]), and we were told that "it is quite possible under the present system for an animal to go its whole life without being tested".[366] At present, farmers have no way of knowing if this were the case.

122. A possible solution would be to include the date of the latest TB test on the cattle passport. The NFBG had raised this idea, which is supported by many farmers and the National Beef Association,[367] with Ministers and been told that there were no plans to introduce such a scheme at present.[368] When we ourselves put the proposal to Mr Rooker, he suggested that "it may be in the future ... that the cattle passport can be used for this kind of innovation" but that "in these very early days of the Cattle Movement Service I could not possibly contemplate that".[369] The difficulty as he saw it was that the system was relatively new and its success had been guaranteed by avoiding the mistake of including 'add-ons' to its basic purpose. He also pointed out that "saying when an animal has been tested, of course, may not tell you what its current status is".[370] This is true. However, it would offer the farmer much more information than is available at present, and we believe that it is in keeping with the purpose for which the Cattle Tracing System had been established. We recommend that the Minister reconsider his decision on including the date of the last TB test in cattle passports.