123. MAFF's written evidence to us concluded with the recognition that "there has been much speculation as to what future policy will be if the trial shows that proactive - or reactive - culling reduces the incidence of TB". However, "it is not possible to answer such questions at this stage".[371] This has not eased the sense of frustration and fear, particularly among conservationists. One badger group wrote that they were "exceedingly worried" that "if the results of this experiment show that badger culling can reduce TB in cattle, the farming industry will put intense pressure on the Government to extend the culling to other areas".[372] The NFBG thought "it is important to find out exactly what the policy options are and what the Government is prepared to do with the results".[373]

124. Some witnesses have begun to address this question. The BVA set out five objectives for future policy: that it stops the spread of new infections, reduces the incidence in established areas, is simple and practical to carry out, satisfies public opinion and is acceptable to the Treasury.[374] English Nature meanwhile concluded "it is essential that any future strategy also takes into account the costs and benefits, both financial and to nature conservation, of any changes to disease control practices". They added that permanent removal of badgers was neither "desirable or achievable" and that "such an approach would simply not be sustainable in the long term and would not provide the hoped for solution to the problem of herd breakdowns".[375] The CCW concurred, adding that "we are not at all clear regarding the future strategy for TB control if badgers are found to be significant vectors of bovine TB".[376] Professor Bourne suggested that the elements of a sustainable policy would have to meet tests of "Social responsibility, cost [and] scientific credibility".[377] The wholesale elimination of badgers from areas of the UK would not be socially tolerated and so was not an option.[378] His Group had commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of possible future policy options, which would take into account "the cost of field work, the savings to be made by TB control both at local and national level".[379]

125. Of course, it is the Minister himself who will ultimately decide on future policy. Mr Rooker has already said "I do not see widespread culling as the answer".[380] He clarified this statement in evidence to us as to what type of culling could be advocated: "It could be, in very tiny, selected hot spot areas, depending ... on the time of the year, the terrain, the badger density, and other factors, that indicate to us that doing that can control bovine TB".[381] The Minister rejected the suggestion that he might be able to take an early policy decision based on the interim results, unless this was fully backed by advice from the Bourne Group, officials and others.[382] We understand and appreciate the necessity of making policy based on the full outcome of the trial rather than on incomplete data or no data at all. However, we believe that it should be possible for the Government to set out clear objectives for its long term and short term strategy for the control of bovine TB. At the moment, the refusal to rule out any options or draw up any criteria gives the impression of lack of direction and could well lead to a loss of faith in the ability of the Government to tackle the problem effectively. We recommend that the Government specify the criteria on which its sustainable policy will be judged and publish detailed objectives for the policy in the short and the long-term. We also recommend that MAFF undertake a statistical risk assessment of the possible policy procedures, in conjunction with the Bourne Group and representatives of all interested parties.