The new Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Beddington, has also spoken to Professor John Bourne, who confirmed the points of agreement. Given this agreement, no further dialogue is planned between Professor Beddington and former members of the ISG. However, Professor Bob Watson, Defra's Chief Scientific Adviser, will continue his interest in bovine TB and involve other experts as necessary

  We now have enough evidence to decide that further research is unlikely to yield conclusive answers on the exact means of transmission between cattle and badgers; however, we will continue to consider new ideas. The RBCT has demonstrated that it is not possible to quantify the possible routes of transmission and although there is evidence that transmission to cattle is primarily through the respiratory route, the pathology of bovine TB in badgers, cattle and other species suggests indirect infection of cattle through badger excreta is a considerable risk. The relative importance of the routes of infection will therefore remain an unknown, and it should be assumed for control purposes that both direct and indirect transmission of TB between badgers and cattle may occur in farm buildings and at pasture. Our bovine TB control strategy mitigates the risks around the uncertainty concerning exact routes of transmission by seeking to ensure that, in relation to as many routes of transmission as possible, disease spread is minimised.

  We have also increased our spending on cattle testing to try to identify and remove disease, including through our investment in extension of the use of gamma interferon testing. Increased cattle testing can be expected to have a positive effect on disease incidence, which we anticipate would result in a saving for the taxpayer in the future.

  While increasing funding to try and better control the disease could seem an attractive option, Government must be realistic: there is a point at which such measures cease to be good value for the taxpayer, the farming industry, or for disease control and it is far from clear whether considerable additional investment in bovine TB control would deliver benefits that justified the expense. This will be a key issue for the new bovine TB Partnership Group to consider, together with the question of who should meet the cost of any new measures.

  The Bovine TB Science Advisory Body has four working subgroups focusing on specific areas of Defra's bovine TB research portfolio: vaccines; epidemiology and wildlife risks; diagnostics; and economics and social science. The Chairman of the Bovine TB Science Advisory Body, Professor Quintin McKellar, will take a strategic overview of the activity of the sub-groups and identify any gaps in their coverage. The Body reports to Defra's Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser.

  We agree we need to look closely at how our current strategy might be improved. However, decisions on how we move forward and enhance the disease control framework cannot be taken by Government alone. As with other areas of animal health policy, we want to share responsibility for decision taking with farmers—working together to take future decisions about bovine TB control measures. There are some tough choices to make, such as on whether cattle controls might be tightened, and important work to take forward on vaccination. We are keen to start this work as soon as possible.

  In taking forward discussions on future bovine TB control options, Government and industry will be able to draw on an extensive evidence base. However, as both the Committee and the ISG have concluded, there remains a great deal of uncertainty around many aspects of bovine TB, including routes and rates of transmission, between cattle and between badgers and cattle. It may never be possible to have a perfect picture of the epidemiology of bovine TB, and the focus must therefore be to reduce the risk of disease spread based on basic principles of disease control and current knowledge. We continue to look for new disease control tools by investing in research into various aspects of bovine TB in cattle, badgers and other species, in order to inform evidence-based policy making. The most significant investment the Government is making is into the continued development of vaccines for badgers and cattle.

  The option of introducing compulsory post-movement testing was considered as part of the strategy consultation in 2004. However, it was decided not to go ahead with post-movement testing at that stage. Analysis showed that post-movement testing cattle moving into a 3 or 4 yearly testing herd in England and Wales, in addition to pre-movement testing as currently implemented, would give the greatest disease control of the options assessed but at the highest cost. That approach was shown to have a lower net benefit than pre-movement testing as currently implemented. Based on the information then available, the addition of post-movement testing was estimated to prevent a further 70 bovine TB incidents per year at a cost of about £50,000 each, which appeared to be high in relation to the benefits.

  Nonetheless, the Government agrees with the Committee that it would be worth revisiting this decision, but would want to do so as part of the discussion in the Bovine TB Partnership Group of future control options.

  In England, the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) is responsible for keeping records of all cattle movements through its Cattle Tracing System, which is fit for purpose. Vetnet is the current IT system used by Animal Health to keep records of bovine TB testing and control measures, and it is to this that Lord Rooker referred (q538, transcript of 10 December 2007) when giving evidence to the Committee, rather than to the BCMS Cattle Tracing System.

  Animal Health is responsible for the administration of the bovine TB control programme, and has recognised the problems associated with having several separate outdated systems to deliver the programme, which include Vetnet and TBIS. As part of their Business Reform Programme they are introducing a new, more cohesive IT system which will fulfil the functions currently performed by several different systems. The first version of this new system ('SAM') will be rolled out shortly, with bovine TB functionality introduced at a later date.

  The systems used in England for recording cattle movements and other information relevant to managing bovine TB breakdowns are not directly comparable with the APHIS cattle tracing system operating in Northern Ireland.

  Defra must continue to support research into evaluating the effects of employing different animal husbandry measures on farms. Defra should adopt a more pro-active approach using vets based in local communities creating biosecurity "partnerships" with farmers (paragraph 166).

  An analysis of farm-level herd breakdown risk factors for bovine TB was conducted by the ISG during the course of the RBCT. They concluded that it is not possible to identify single factors that increase the chance of a herd suffering a bovine TB breakdown. It is therefore not possible to recommend a single measure that farmers could take to mitigate these risks, but by introducing a number of measures and following best-practice advice the cumulative effect may result in a reduction of bovine TB incidence.

  The Government continues to fund research into the feasibility of practical husbandry measures reducing the disease risk posed by badgers to cattle. Between 2003 and 2005 a husbandry project carried out by researchers at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) (project SE3029: An investigation of potential badger/cattle interactions and how cattle husbandry methods may limit these, total cost £556,851) investigated badger-to-cattle contact in and around farm buildings and found that badgers did visit farmyards to a higher degree than was previously thought. Since November 2005 Defra has funded a follow-up project with CSL (project SE3119: An experiment to assess the cost-effectiveness of farm husbandry manipulations to reduce risks associated with farmyard contact between badgers and cattle, total cost £1,042,493), which is investigating practical adaptations which can be made to farm buildings and equipment such as feeders and gates in order to keep badgers out while not significantly interfering with the day-to-day running of the farm. This research will also include an analysis of the costs and benefits of the husbandry interventions tested. The results of this research are due in early 2010.

  The Government recognises that many farmers currently have reservations about accepting its advice on issues such as husbandry. It is for this reason that the Bovine TB Husbandry Working Group was established, to work with industry representatives and other interested groups to develop and distribute advice in which farmers would have confidence. We would also encourage industry bodies to continue to promote best practice husbandry and biosecurity measures to their members as a way in which they can reduce their chance of experiencing a bovine TB breakdown. The Bovine TB Partnership Group may wish to consider how we communicate biosecurity measures and how we could work together to assist parts of the farming sector in managing the impact of living in high risk areas. We would be prepared to consider making additional funding available to support such initiatives if the group puts forward a strong business case for doing so.

  Defra works closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to combat bovine TB in both England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government was represented on the Bovine TB Husbandry Working Group and keeps us closely in touch with the progress of their Husbandry Intensive Treatment Area. We have not ruled out trialling a similar approach in England and are awaiting the outcome of this research with interest.

  We have a programme in place to explore the options for the use of vaccines with the scientists involved in their development, and with stakeholders. Vaccine development has been a priority for a number of years in line with the recommendations in the 1997 Krebs Report. We have invested £18 million over the past ten years in research and development on badger vaccines, cattle vaccines and associated diagnostic tests. We have now also decided to commit to spending a total of £20 million over this CSR period. The continued and additional funding will help us further develop oral badger vaccines and investigate ways in which they could most effectively be deployed. It will also enable us to continue with the work on cattle BCG-based vaccines, developing tests to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals, evaluate the duration of sensitisation of cattle to the tuberculin skin test and boost work looking at non-sensitising vaccines for cattle.

  We will also invest additional funding in setting up and running an injectable badger vaccine deployment project to prepare for deploying vaccines in the future. The injectable badger vaccine will be used in the deployment project with the aim of building stakeholder confidence in the long term contribution badger vaccination could make to tackling bovine TB, and to provide valuable information which can help us move towards the longer term goal of an oral badger vaccine. This will not be a rigorous scientific trial but a practical demonstration in collaboration with stakeholders and researchers on how a vaccine might be used, in order to gain confidence in the use of badger vaccination.

  The Government is also working closely with researchers in Ireland and New Zealand to share any developments across the bovine TB community internationally and draw on worldwide expert advice. Bovine TB vaccine research is an extremely complex area but this integrated approach places us in the best possible position to share knowledge and target research funding appropriately.

  A Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee was set up by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) in 2001 to review progress and reported its advice on future research requirements to Ministers in 2003. Most of the recommendations from the Study have been taken forward by the Department and are overseen by a bovine TB Vaccine Programme Advisory Group composed of independent scientists and chaired by the Departmental TB Vaccine Programme Adviser, Professor Douglas Young, an internationally recognised expert in human TB vaccines from Imperial College.

  There are a number of different ways in which vaccination could be used to tackle bovine TB in cattle and/or badgers, each with associated benefits and issues. At the core of these is the balance of costs versus benefits in terms of disease control, but there are also wider issues that need to be taken into account and balanced such as acceptability, practicality, trade issues and legal constraints. Government has been working closely with scientists and stakeholders to consider these issues and develop a strategy for the potential use of vaccines for bovine TB by:

• ascertaining whether the benefits of vaccines will be sufficient to ensure uptake and justify their use when balanced with the costs associated with developing and using them;
• identifying any barriers to the potential use of vaccines that need to be overcome e.g. any legal restrictions; and
• understanding the properties required of the vaccines to influence further development.

  This work has shown that vaccines can potentially make a contribution to the control of bovine TB as part of a wider package of controls. However, it has identified a number of significant issues both scientific and policy which will need to be addressed. The options and issues have been summarised in two papers, one considering cattle vaccines and the other badger vaccines. Both have been endorsed by industry and stakeholder groups as a sound basis for moving the vaccines programme forward. The papers are available online at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/vaccination/index.htm.

  Vaccination is a long term policy option. Research by its nature takes time and a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed. Taking into account the scientific, policy and legal issues, oral badger vaccines are unlikely to be available before 2014 and cattle vaccines not before 2015. A licensed injectable badger vaccine may be available by 2010 and although unlikely to be practical for widespread its small scale use in the deployment project is important to understand what may be possible with an oral badger vaccine.

  We recognise that table valuations are unpopular with some cattle farmers, and we would emphasise that:

• table valuations are an entirely objective way of determining compensation;
• a large amount of sales data is collected to support table values (i.e. for around 1.25 million cattle a year) from a large number and wide range of sources;
• table values are only used if sufficient data has been collected. The decision as to what constitutes 'sufficient' data is based on an annual objective analysis (by statisticians) of the variability of sales data within each category; and
• table valuations are not new—they have been used previously in GB and are currently used (for bovine TB purposes) in other parts of the world.

  The Government has not ruled out the possibility of making changes to the table valuation system but our view remains that any such changes must be fully and objectively justified and must also protect the interests of all parties—including the taxpayer.

  The Committee will be aware that the NFU have supported a judicial review of the table valuation system and that we are currently awaiting the Court's judgement.

  The gamma interferon test should be strategically directed in both routine and pre-movement testing (Paragraph 143).

  Defra must examine carefully the benefits of the introduction of the parallel use of gamma interferon testing alongside the tuberculin skin test. (paragraph 193).

  Defra must examine carefully the benefits of increasing the frequency of testing (paragraph 193).

  The current gamma interferon policy, adopted in 2006, increased the circumstances in which the test is used, and was designed to target the test where it would yield the highest benefits. The decision as to where to focus its use also reflected the high cost of the test, and practical constraints such as laboratory capacity and the need for blood samples to reach the laboratory in a viable condition within 24 hours of being taken. The test is currently used in the following circumstances, and targeted on those herds where reactors have already been identified by a parallel skin test, and disease has been confirmed at post-mortem inspection or through culture:

• all confirmed new incidents in 3 or 4 yearly tested herds, including those that fail to resolve through repeated skin testing or where complete or partial de-population is contemplated;
• confirmed bovine TB incidents that have failed to resolve through repeated skin testing or where complete or partial de-population is contemplated;
• at the first inconclusive reactor (IR) retest in unresolved IRs in herds in 1 and 2 yearly tested herds.

  Between 23 October 2006 and 30 April 2008, this approach identified 3651 reactors in England. These gamma interferon test reactors were likely to be infected with bovine TB, but had failed to produce a reaction to an earlier (or contemporaneous) tuberculin skin test.

  During development of the gamma interferon policy, consideration was given to whether it should be used in pre- and/or post-movement testing. However, practical, legal and cost issues have ruled this option out for the present. Currently, blood samples for gamma interferon testing are only taken by Animal Health staff because of the complicated logistics of despatching these samples quickly to the laboratory in temperature-controlled, specialist packaging. Pre- and post-movement tests are carried out by private vets and it is not currently practical to extend the system so as to allow them to take samples for gamma interferon testing. There would also be significant cost implications. Pre- and post-movement testing is paid for by farmers, whereas gamma interferon testing is currently funded by Government. Using the gamma interferon test for pre-movement testing is likely to cost significantly more per animal tested than the current cost using the skin test, a cost which would be borne by industry, who have little appetite for such a change. Although this approach could be expected to disclose more reactors, it is far from clear whether the benefits would justify the substantial costs.

  The slightly lower specificity (its ability to differentiate between true and false positives) of the gamma interferon test (in relation to the skin test) might also result in significant farmer opposition if it was used as a surveillance test rather than, as at present, in herds where disease has already been identified. The gamma interferon test has a specificity of 97%, which although high, still carries a risk of producing three false positives per hundred animals tested. It is for these reasons that the gamma interferon test use is currently targeted in herds where infection has already been confirmed at post mortem examination and/or culture, or where the likelihood of the animal truly being infected with bovine TB is high (e.g. 2 time inconclusive reactors).

  The tuberculin skin test is currently the only one approved by the EU as the primary diagnostic test for bovine TB i.e. to determine the disease status of cattle herds. The gamma interferon test is recognised by the EU, as an ancillary test. To routinely use the gamma interferon test in parallel with the skin test would bring with it significant difficulties and very high costs. An initial high-level cost-benefit analysis shows that routinely using the gamma interferon test as the primary diagnostic test for bovine TB is likely to produce small benefits when compared to the extremely high cost (possible benefits of around £125m over 20 years, with a cost of £1 billion over 20 years). Using the gamma interferon test routinely in parallel with the skin test would cost still more.

  A review of the first full year of the use of the gamma interferon test since its roll-out in October 2006 is currently underway. The circumstances in which the gamma interferon test is used, including the Committee's recommendations and whether the test should be made available for private use, are being considered as part of this work. Further roll-out of its use in the future will depend on a number of factors including availability of resources, testing/laboratory capacity, the effectiveness of the policy and the level of stakeholder buy-in to the test.

  Government will continue to work to increase understanding of the gamma interferon test and build confidence in the role it can play in tackling disease.

  Increasing the frequency of bovine TB testing in some areas was recommended by the ISG. However, doing this would have significant financial and practical implications—an initial cost-benefit analysis does not suggest that the case for this sort of change is strong. Increased testing would result in more animals slaughtered and, as the Committee acknowledges, this would also increase the cost of compensation for the taxpayer. Our current approach to determining the minimum levels of routine testing for cattle herds is risk-based and consistent with the requirements of EU Council Directive 64/432/EEC. Parish Testing Intervals reflect the local level of bovine TB prevalence, and are reviewed each year to take account of any change in the disease situation. An increase in the levels of disease in an area triggers more frequent testing. Divisional Veterinary Managers (Animal Health) are already empowered to increase testing if local circumstances indicate that such action is required.

  The current approach is risk-based and, as already discussed, any changes to the current package of cattle controls would only be considered if supported by industry. This will be another issue that will be on the agenda for the Bovine TB Partnership Group.

  
While a Government statement on the recommendations in the Pitt Report will be published in the Autumn, and a full analysis of the responses to the consultations which accompanied the publication of Future Water has yet to be completed, the Government confirms that the Environment Agency will have a Strategic Overview for all flood risk management, from whatever source. Indeed it is the Government's intention that the recently announced draft Floods and Water Bill will simplify and streamline the complex inter-relationships of roles and responsibilities between the Environment Agency, Local Authorities, internal drainage boards and water companies; and to enable the Government to fully implement the Environment Agency's Strategic Overview role.

  
The Government recognises the concerns that the Committee raises about the Environment Agency's capacity to take on this additional role and the need to manage expectations about what can be achieved. We shall ensure that these issues are addressed in developing the Agency's Strategic Overview in more detail.

  
The Government also agrees with the Select Committee in rejecting the idea of a dedicated flood agency not least because this would separate flooding from wider management of the water cycle.

  
The Environment Agency will help to identify the priority areas for such plans across the country, building on work they have already done with Local Resilience Fora in identifying problem areas. We are now working to set out in more detail the respective roles of all organisations.

  
The Environment Agency has previously worked with the Institution of Civil Engineers and Defra to address skills shortages. The Agency has encouraged the development of their own specialists through a bespoke Foundation Degree in collaboration with the University of the West of England (UWE). To date, 56 people have graduated, with 52 now working in flood risk management roles at the Agency. The target by the end of 2008-09 is to have trained 87 engineering technicians, with another 80 undertaking training, and a large proportion having gained lasting employment with the Environment Agency.

  In 2007 a scheme for Civil Engineering graduates commenced with 14 students joining the Agency in September 2007 on a four year pathway to professional status with similar numbers planned for September 2008 intake. The Agency also runs an engineering student sponsorship scheme, with around 10 undergraduates each academic year, allowing work experience prior to graduation.

  
With a view to developing the skills of existing staff, the Environment Agency has developed, again in conjunction with UWE, a BSc and Graduate Diploma in Rivers and Coastal Engineering. These routes allow flood risk management staff who meet specific criteria to develop their skills in order to follow the pathway for Incorporated Engineer status.

  
The increase to more than £800 million by 2010-11 will provide a substantial real terms increase in funding and enable the protection from flooding and coastal erosion to be improved for at least 145,000 households. It is consistent with the trajectory of funding increase suggested in the Foresight report and is more than many commentators were calling for before last summer's flooding. It provides some funding to start to address the Pitt recommendations that fall to Government, but it is important to note that responsibility for implementing some of the recommendations will fall to others.

  
The profile of increase to £800 million over the CSR period reflects the generally long lead-in times for major capital investment schemes which need to be planned, developed, procured and all necessary consents obtained.

  
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for a Long Term Investment Strategy. This will inform any future spending reviews and the issues raised by the Committee will be considered as part of the development process alongside issues such as the potential for increased encouragement for communities to contribute towards their own defences.

  Funding allocations are based on a wide range of analysis and are regularly reviewed in the light of improving evidence of risks from different sources of flooding. Funding of flood risk management capital improvement projects has traditionally been supported by central government from general taxation. Local government also has an important role, particularly in respect of maintenance and smaller watercourses. Their expenditure is supported though the local government funding arrangements operated by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

  
RFDCs retain powers to raise levies to fund locally important flood defence activity which goes beyond that met by Defra grant in aid. Capital improvement projects promoted in this way still have to comply with fundamental economic, technical and environmental criteria. These levies are paid by upper tier councils, who form the majority on RFDCs, and are supported through the local government funding system.

  
For its part, the Environment Agency is developing System Asset Management Plans, which will include the full maintenance costs of all Environment Agency asset systems, with the high consequence asset systems being completed first (due for completion in 2010).

  
The relationship between capital improvements and maintenance is complex. Some capital improvements actually reduce maintenance costs—eg where the capital involves replacing or enhancing new assets. The maintenance budgets for the current CSR period will take into account maintenance of assets built in this CSR period. The Environment Agency takes the whole life costs into account when planning its capital programme. The extension of Outcome Measures to maintenance in 2009/10, should inform the allocation of funding to the different flood and coastal erosion risk management activities that are undertaken.

  
The Environment Agency aims to ensure that they have a consistent, evidence-based approach to works that achieves value for money across the country. In developing their programmes of activity, the Agency recognise the need to build trust with organisations and communities by increasing their understanding and involvement with decision-making—including where hard decisions have to be made—and to ensure that relevant information is available through the Agency's website.

  
For more than a decade the Government has promoted the preparation of Water Level Management Plans that seek to balance and integrate the needs of all relevant interests including those of agriculture, the environment and flood risk management in sites of conservation importance. Elsewhere the Environment Agency and Natural England actively work together to resolve any potential conflicts between effective drainage for flood management and wildlife issues.

  
In reviewing flood and coastal erosion risk management legislation, the Government will consider the present balance of responsibilities between riparian owners and publicly funded bodies and whether more clarity and consistency is required. This review will also consider how information collection and sharing can be improved, including the proposed register of flood risk management and drainage assets, and how best disputes between neighbours can be resolved, eg where one party is adversely affected by a neighbour's failure to maintain free flow of a watercourse, or where surface water flows from one person's land on to another's.

  
Wherever possible, Government already seeks to ensure that wider policy initiatives and investment programmes contribute to reducing flood risk. For example, flood management is a secondary objective of the Environmental Stewardship agri-environment scheme and Defra encourages targeting to maximise the benefits for flood management. Cross compliance also helps; to receive payment under the single payment scheme, farmers must comply with Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC). GAEC seeks to protect and maintain of soil condition, habitats and landscape features, which help mitigate flood impacts.

  
The delivery of multiple benefit projects is ultimately a matter for delivery bodies. The Environment Agency and Defra have undertaken significant research to investigate the links between land management and flood risk. While the evidence suggests that land use management can have important benefits for flood risk management at a local level, there is no evidence that these benefits occur at a larger catchment scale. The Environment Agency and the National Trust have taken steps to work more closely together to close the gap in the understanding of catchment scale changes and how they deliver improved flood risk management. Defra will work with partners by the end of 2008 to explore what more can be done to demonstrate how multiple benefit schemes can alleviate flood risk.

  The Electricity industry has identified just over 1,000 grid and primary sites which are in flood zones. The industry is working with the Environment Agency to identify which of these sites might warrant additional protection. Some of these are already protected, for example recently built flood defences protected 4 substations in Yorkshire last year. In the water sector, each water company is reviewing how its critical assets are at risk from flooding in preparing its business plan for the current Ofwat-led review of water price limits. All this action will be pulled into a planned national campaign of action to improve resilience, sector by sector; Government will produce later this year.

  
In relation to emergency planning, response and recovery, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) places statutory duties on utilities as Category 2 responders (as defined by the Act). The CCA will be reviewed later this year, and as the Government has already indicated in response to Sir Michael Pitt's interim report, the duties placed on Category 2 responders—including business continuity planning—will be examined and revised if necessary. In the meantime, the Government will continue to encourage critical infrastructure operators to have business continuity planning to BS 25999 standard.

  In relation to the water industry, the Government's draft social and environmental guidance to Ofwat has made clear the importance of ensuring that water companies are able to carry out the essential works needed to address the vulnerability of their critical assets to natural hazards and the predicted effects of climate change. The review of the provision of alternative water supplies during a water emergency (referred to in the response to Conclusion/Recommendation 36) may necessitate new guidance to the water industry on the Security and Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1998 and the Security and Emergency Measures (Licensed Water Suppliers) Direction 2006. The specific obligations on electricity companies about ensuring continuity of supply are set out in The Electricity Security, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 which were amended in 2006.

  
Following the flooding in 2007, Ofwat have reviewed current industry practice for assessing the resilience of assets to flood risks. This sets out how to assess the risk of flooding of critical assets; identify different approaches to maintaining or improving the resilience of the service delivered by these and related assets; and guidance on the application of cost benefit analysis for justifying potential asset investments.

  
The rail network will also be captured in the Cabinet Office's work to establish a systematic programme to reduce the risk of disruption of essential services resulting from natural hazards (as mentioned under Conclusion/Recommendation 29).

  
The EA has a long-standing policy of actively supporting infrastructure operators to undertake risk assessments for critical assets. In so doing, the Agency will make available information that it holds on flood risk and depths and will advise on the impact of any proposed mitigation measures on flood risk in the wider community. However, only infrastructure operators have detailed site specific knowledge such as the level of flooding that will cause asset failure, the criticality of the asset and alternative options for maintaining a service.

  
Meanwhile people can enter their postcode into the Environment Agency's Website to find out if they are in a flood risk area.

  
The Environment Agency is also working closely with the Met Office and other partners to improve flood warning, and the outputs of Met Office climate change modelling will be used, through the UK Climate Impacts Programme climate scenarios, in assessing the impacts of climate change on flood risk.

  When considering the Committee's recommendations, it is important to recognise that Defra envisages that any successor to the VSA would need to encompass providers of wider veterinary services. Whilst the RCVS will be a key partner in helping to design a framework for the regulation of veterinary service providers, there is a very diverse group of stakeholders to be consulted with a broad range of opinion on the best way forward. The RCVS may therefore wish to prioritise those areas where it can develop its ideas on behalf of the veterinary profession.

  A new regulatory framework which includes veterinary service providers would impact on the role of the RCVS. The relationship between the RCVS and possible new regulatory bodies would need to be established.

  It is essential that any detailed proposals that are produced by the RCVS include a robust assessment of the costs and benefits. Defra may be able to provide some assistance on how an Impact Assessment might be developed.

  However, we believe that the Department continues to enjoy a good working relationship with the RCVS. Lord Rooker visited the RCVS on 6 May and discussed the VSA in some depth. Defra will continue to engage with the RCVS on a wide range of issues. Nigel Gibbens (Chief Veterinary Officer) will continue the regular and on-going dialogue enjoyed by previous CVO's and the RCVS Presidential team.

• What type of complaints should be investigated?
• Who considers the complaints, what proportion should be vets and how should they be appointed?
• What powers and sanctions might be applied?
• What system of appeal should be made available?
• How should the disciplinary process link to any new Council function of monitoring a veterinary surgeon's on-going fitness to practice?
• Should there be a veterinary ombudsman with oversight of the system?
• How much will the new system cost to administer and how will it be funded?

  We recognise that the RCVS is uncomfortable with widening the scope of the current disciplinary system as this goes beyond the traditional scope of a regulator. But public expectations have changed dramatically and this change must be taken into account when developing a new complaints system.

  There needs to be a period of reflection by the veterinary profession on these questions. Defra will contribute to the debate, however, as mentioned in our response to recommendation 6, we are not convinced that piecemeal change to the VSA is necessarily the best way forward. Not least, because we believe Council's responsibilities for monitoring veterinary surgeons fitness to practice would need to be clarified before designing a new disciplinary procedure.

  There is general agreement on the separation of the standard setting and adjudication responsibilities of Council. However, any proposal to replace the current disciplinary arrangements for veterinary surgeons is likely to be the subject of keen debate with a key factor for some being whether the veterinary profession should retain responsibility for adjudicating complaints against its own members. Our view is that the profession should retain this responsibility but that safeguards should be included to ensure any new system has the confidence of the animal owning public.

  Whilst we recognise the importance that the Committee place on this issue, our preference would be to develop a new disciplinary process that is part of a new regulatory framework for veterinary services. We may ultimately need to decide between a less than perfect system built into the existing Act, or wait until resource is available to replace the existing Act and develop a more complete and robust disciplinary system.

  Throughout the debate on the need for a mandatory scheme, very little has been said about the standards actually delivered by veterinary practices. In any service sector, there is bound to be a wide range of quality of the services provided. We need an honest debate about the standards of service delivered to customers by veterinary practices, backed up with firm evidence. This debate would need to decide whether we need to impose minimum standards on small businesses or whether we can rely on a voluntary system of practice standards and market forces?

  The regulation of para-professionals is a central issue when considering replacement of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We would want to take into account the extent to which the current restrictions on veterinary practice inhibits the development of veterinary care services and ensure we put in place a risk based but more flexible regulatory framework.

  A fundamental requirement for the regulation of para-professionals must be that that they are suitably trained and that their competence is assured.

  However, the scale of regulation for para-professionals has to be proportionate to risks involved and the size of the sector concerned. The extent to which para-professionals should to work under veterinary direction or supervision or whether they may work independently and perhaps in competition with veterinary surgeons would also need to be clarified.

  This is a complex area and the current pressure on Defra resource means we do not envisage being able to progress these issues in the current spending round period.

  The European Commission has sole right of initiation for reviewing or amending EU legislation. Given the Commission's attitude towards implementation of the Directive (i.e. several successful infraction cases), it is unlikely to co-operate at this time, not least because the UK is currently being infracted.

  Other Member States have generally accepted the Commission's position and already implemented the Directive, and are therefore unlikely to wish to reverse their policy and support the UK.

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate/pdf/consultation-supportdocs/d1-nitrateswater.pdf

  In particular, we have been monitoring nitrate losses from agriculture around the country for a number of years. The monitoring data collected was used to develop models which can predict the effectiveness of measures at tackling nitrate losses from agriculture. Using these models, we are able to conclude with reasonable confidence that the measures contained in the current Action Programme are unlikely to significantly reduce nitrate losses at the national scale. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate/pdf/consultation-supportdocs/g3-nit18-report.pdf

• our policy is in-line with the principles of better regulation, targeting action and regulation to areas where it is most needed.
• the cost-effectiveness of our policy is maximised; taking a whole territory approach would impose a financial burden on farmers in areas of the country where action would generate little environmental benefit.

  The methodology used in the most recent review of NVZs has been peer reviewed by independent technical experts who judged it to be the best approach currently available. As technology and scientific understanding improves the methodology will be updated.

  We consider there is robust evidence to support the de-designation of a number of small areas of the 2002 NVZs on the following grounds:

• Improvements in modelling techniques since 2002 mean that we are now able to more accurately identify the land that actually drains to polluted surface waters.
• Improvements in the network of boreholes for monitoring the quality of our groundwaters, and improved understanding (and data) in relation to hydrogeology, mean we are now able to more accurately identify polluted groundwaters and their catchments.

  Using this improved understanding and data will lead to the de-designation of some small areas of NVZs designated in 2002 (approximately 1.5% of England).

  
The Directive requires us not only to identify waters that are polluted, but also waters which are at risk of becoming polluted in the near future, if action is not taken under the Action Programme. We consider NVZs designated in 2002 draining to waters not identified as being polluted in the recent review should remain designated as NVZs. Specifically, the land draining to:

• Surface waters which were properly identified as polluted in 2002 but now have nitrate concentrations below the 'polluted' threshold of 50mg/l. There is insufficient data to be confident that the improvement in water quality will be sustained, and there is a risk that removal of the Action Programme in these areas could simply lead to an increase in nitrate pollution and their re-identification as polluted during the next review.
• The five waterbodies identified as eutrophic in 2002, but which were not reassessed during the recent review. Our understanding of eutrophication is that its effects take a long time to reverse and become apparent in the ecology. A reassessment of the ecology at these sites would, we believe, still lead to the waters being identified as eutrophic and therefore polluted.

  The Department will work with the Environment Agency to develop, in time for the next review of NVZs in four years time, a more detailed methodology which sets more specific criteria to be met for it to be established that an area should be de-designated. For example, the criteria might stipulate the period over which improvements in water quality must be observed, and the evidence needed to demonstrate that changes are not reversible and will not be lost by removing the Action Programme measures (i.e. we need to avoid a 'ping-pong' approach to designations).

  As indicated in the consultation, we will provide a procedure by which farmers can appeal against the inclusion of their land within an NVZ if they have evidence to demonstrate that either it does not drain to a water body identified as nitrate-polluted, or that the water body is not polluted. We intend to make this open to farmers in both new and existing NVZs.

  As identified in the evidence papers published in support of the consultation, cover crops are one of the most effective measures available for tackling nitrate losses from arable land and the proposed rule was expected to deliver the greatest reductions in nitrate loss compared to the other proposed Action Programme measures.

  We are looking to the agricultural industry to identify and implement ways of tackling nitrate loss from arable land as a lack of improvement in water quality at the next Action Programme review could lead to the cover crops requirement being reconsidered as a measure.

  The Department is currently exploring whether there is scope for introducing a new management option within the Entry Level Stewardship for a temporary vegetative cover (such as a cover crop) to reduce soil erosion and run-off. Depending on uptake, this could contribute to the improvements in water quality that we desire and will help inform policy decisions about a rule on cover crops in any future Action Programme.

• the closed periods in the current Action Programme were relatively effective at tackling nitrate loss, but only applied in relation to small areas of the country and therefore had little overall impact on water quality;
• the closed period should be extended to all soil types because, although nitrate leaching from sandy soils is greater than from clay soils, nitrate losses from clay soils do occur in the autumn and winter;
• The risk of nitrate leaching persists for more months than previously thought.

  At the request of the European Commission we will be undertaking further research regarding leaching losses of nitrogen from applications of organic manure made during January. This will be used to inform the next review of the Action Programme, including whether the closed period should be extended to include the whole of this month.

  An updated Impact Assessment will be published alongside the Regulations and will include a cost-benefit analysis.

  In response to comments from stakeholders regarding the need for clarity and simplicity we intend to remove the higher rainfall band and align the end dates of the closed periods according to soil type. We also intend to introduce a new exemption which will enable registered organic producers to spread a limited amount of organic manure during the closed periods if there is a demonstrable crop nitrogen requirement.

  Further support will be provided through an extensive advice delivery programme, including workshops and demonstrations.

  We consider the storage capacity requirement of 6 months for pig slurry and poultry manure, and 5 months for cattle slurry to be most appropriate for conditions in England.

  It is not our intention to require farmers to construct manure storage facilities of a greater capacity than they could possibly need. The exemptions and calculation process proposed in the consultation was designed with this in mind and guidance and advice is being developed to ensure that farmers fully understand the calculation process, are able to assess how much storage they need on their farm, and how to make the most of existing storage facilities.

  Comments raised during the consultation highlighted the calculation process did not take account of the fact that some farmers are able to spread manure (outside the closed period) on their farm without increasing the risk of runoff, and therefore potentially do not need such large amounts of storage.

  We are therefore adding a refinement to the storage requirement calculation to allow farmers to take account of the amount of manure that can be spread to "low risk run-off land".

  Whilst we recognise that anaerobic digestion will not be an appropriate solution in all cases, we would encourage farmers to consider how innovative solutions and technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, could help them comply with the storage requirement and other measures.

  There are a number of potential existing sources of financial support available to farmers which could help with implementation of the Action Programme. For example, the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative is providing grant for farmers with land in a priority catchment for a range of capital items including roofs for slurry stores and for improving yard drainage (clean and foul water separation). There have been two rounds of applications for these grants since April 2007 and subject to funding being available we expect there will be further rounds.

  Funds are also available under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE), which is being administered by the Regional Development Agencies. These are available via on-farm capital investments for modernising farm holdings, structures and equipment in a manner that will improve the management of nutrients and support the adoption of measures that reduce nitrate leaching. For example, Yorkshire Forward has set up a Farm Resource Efficiency Programme which will provide grant for capital items such as slurry separators and nutrient testing kits.

  Treasury has confirmed that slurry storage facilities are eligible for plant and machinery allowances such as the new Annual Investment Allowance, capped at £50,000 per year, included in this year's Finance Bill. Slurry pits also qualify for allowances in their own right under the Capital Allowances Act 2001.

• Guidance booklets for farmers providing information on the rules and the calculation methodologies
• A mass mail out of key information
• A technical helpline
• Workshops / demonstrations

  We intend to use guidance to highlight that farmers can continue to use existing record-keeping systems provided they are adapted to cover the necessary information. We will provide templates for record-keeping which can be used, for example, by those farmers who do not have existing records, and we are currently developing software to assist with the various calculations. We also intend to make it clearer under what circumstances the different record-keeping obligations apply.

  
BW investment in restoration projects is a matter for the BW Board because it is their job to manage risk and to balance their books. BW has provided the Committee with a report on how they prioritise their contribution to such projects and how financial risks are borne. Under the Defra Deal with BW, Defra has agreed not to seek to micromanage British Waterways and the British Waterways Board has agreed to manage risk and be accountable for its decisions.

  
We note that Stroud District Council has now stepped in as the lead partner for the Cotswolds Canal project given its importance to the local community, which in our view is entirely appropriate.

  We recognise that appropriate account must be taken of individuals' rights of privacy and that the right of access needs to be excluded in relation to certain categories of 'excepted land' (land to which the right of access does not apply) as specified in Schedule 1 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Among the categories which we consider should continue to be excepted land for the purposes of the new right are land used as a park or garden, and land covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land.

  Natural England intends to publish criteria as to how it will determine the sections of coast to be included in the coastal access reports submitted to the Secretary of State. These criteria will be published alongside the detailed draft scheme when the Bill is introduced into Parliament.

  Having further considered the situation of estuaries and the comments made in pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation, we believe that, in order to be able to deal appropriately with individual estuaries, but to ensure the decision is based on clear and transparent criteria, Natural England should be able to stop the route at any point between the mouth of the estuary and the first bridge or tunnel, but that we should set out on the face of the Bill the considerations to which Natural England must have regard in proposing this.

  As we indicated in the Government's written evidence to the EFRA Committee we decided that it was appropriate that the Scheme should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State but that it should not be subject to Parliamentary approval. Our view remains that we want Natural England to be able to make improvements or additions to the Scheme in the light of experience on the ground in a manner which is flexible and procedurally 'light touch'. We therefore think it is appropriate that the Scheme should be capable of revision under clause 274(4) (subject to consultation and to approval and publication of the revised Scheme under clause 274(4)-(6)). A similar system has worked successfully for the relevant authority guidance on restrictions and exclusions of access to open country and registered common land issued under section 33 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

  The current provisions in the draft Bill avoid the complexity of the previous mapping system but provide for Natural England to consult affected landowners before preparing its coastal access report which it has to submit to the Secretary of State. In addition, under section 55C (2)(c), the landowner is to be given an opportunity to make representations about the line of the route. Those representations must be considered by Natural England and passed by Natural England to the Secretary of State who must also consider them before making a determination as to the position of the route.

  The report which Natural England draws up does not constitute a decision or a series of individual decisions, which can be appealed against, but rather a recommendation to the Secretary of State. Moreover, the recommendation does not relate solely to the land of an individual landowner, but to an area of the coast where there is a variety of interests. Any proposal relating to the land of one landowner has implications for other interests and the report seeks to strike a fair balance between the different interests. It is then for the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether the report strikes the correct balance. This decision is a general approval of the proposals as a whole. So the resolution of issues arising from the particular concerns of individual landowners needs to be completed before the Secretary of State gives approval in relation to the proposals as a whole.

  In carrying out these processes both Natural England and the Secretary of State are required to aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land. There are also certain safeguards written into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which are relevant

  The flexible nature of the legislation alongside the duty on the Secretary of State and Natural England to strike a fair balance between those with an interest in the land and those of the public and the provisions to exclude excepted land, particularly sensitive land such as parks and gardens and the curtilage of dwellings, will allow Natural England to avoid creating situations where compensation would be required. Natural England will also be under a duty to consult with landowners in deciding on any necessary conditions on access or areas where access should be excluded, for example for land management purposes. Experience of using the exclusions and restrictions system under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 shows that this can be used in a wide range of situations to avoid financial loss for owners. The establishment of the new right will not affect the right of landowners to use, develop or sell their land as before.

  Natural England will also be able to revisit decisions about alignment, and about the need for exclusions or restrictions, in the light of experience of actual impacts from access, and of any evidence that emerges of actual financial loss arising.

  However we also note the Joint Committee's view that the issue of parks and gardens is one to which Parliament will wish to return when the Bill is introduced. In the meantime, as recommended by the Joint Committee, we will give further detailed consideration to what is included in parks and gardens.

  Owners of parks or gardens who are prepared to allow the coastal route to pass through their land will be free to dedicate the necessary strip of land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

  We will review any specific comments on the estimate of costs which have been submitted as part of Defra's public consultation on the draft Bill, and will ensure that all appropriate areas of cost have been taken into account in arriving at the figure. Natural England will continue to refine the costs estimate as implementation plans are further developed and in the light of experience as implementation commences. Building on the data gathered to date, Natural England is currently working with all access authorities around the English coast and undertaking a detailed audit of existing access provision to inform and refine its operational assumptions for the project. We will make available further information on the costs following the completion of Natural England's work with access authorities and subsequently as implementation proceeds.

  Where the trail follows existing public rights of way, highway authorities will remain legally responsible for its maintenance.

  Natural England and access authorities will be able to offer help and advice to owners and occupiers, for example on the appropriate use of signs and notices if this would help clarify the position on the ground as regards access and non-access land and so avoid unwitting trespass by members of the public.

  80)

  Natural England intends to trial the use of descriptive approaches for example in relation to eroding coastline or encroachment by the sea, and the potential relevance of any mapping, in a number of study areas. It intends to issue more detailed information when the Bill is introduced into Parliament about the approach it will take in this respect.

  Natural England also intends to develop and issue further detailed guidance in 2009 on the criteria for possible exclusions and restrictions of access on coastal land, building upon the current Relevant Authority Guidance for open country and registered common land which has been issued under section 33 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The revised guidance will include information on the criteria for exclusions and restrictions of access which may relate specifically to coastal land rather than to open country and registered common land.

  We have considered whether the scope of the Bill should be widened to include an amendment of section 2 of the Animals Act 1971. On reflection we have decided that it would not be appropriate to do so but propose instead to amend the Animals Act 1971 in the same way as the proposal in the Private Member's Bill via a Legislative Reform Order made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.

  We intend to issue a consultation paper on the proposed Legislative Reform Order in the autumn and, subject to due Parliamentary process, are aiming for the Order to come into force in July 2009.

  As noted in our response to Recommendation 18, Natural England intends to adapt its existing Relevant Authority Guidance as necessary for the purposes of coastal access, and will consider the issue of effective dog management in that context.

  (Paragraph 91)

  Outside high incidence areas the control framework based on surveillance, testing and slaughter is working effectively. There are, as the Committee's queries suggest, a range of options for expanding this programme by introducing new control measures or different ways of testing, but the degree of impact they would have on disease levels, and whether or not they would offer good value for money, are far from certain. The Government has to consider how best to use the available resources, and strike a balance between disease control and the costs such measures would impose on both the industry and the taxpayer. At present the best available measures are cattle measures. In the longer term vaccination of badgers and, ideally, cattle, will add to the range of tools available within the control programme.

  The Government rejects the Committee's view that it "is opting out of leadership" and "sub-contracting important decisions" on bovine TB. This is not the case. Leadership in tackling bovine TB is not for government alone, nor is it achieved by government taking unilateral decisions about new cattle control measures. Imposing controls without consultation may be quicker in the short term but it is not the way to make progress on reducing the impact of this disease. The Bovine TB Partnership Group is intended to be exactly that: government and industry working together to take difficult decisions. It is up to industry to decide how quickly the job gets done, and the Government shares the Committee's concern that there might be a delay if the industry declines to participate.

  This Government remains committed to working to find the best ways to tackle bovine TB, and the best way to do that is in partnership with the industry.

  The Committee asked for details on the initial cost benefit analysis Defra undertook of costs of increased testing and increased use of the gamma interferon test (paragraph 12)2. These are provided at Annex A.[5]

  In summary, the initial analysis suggests increased testing or use of the gamma interferon test would come at a high cost with limited benefits—and would be difficult to justify in terms of government expenditure. For illustrative purposes: the cash costs to Government of skin testing a herd of 60 cattle would currently be in the region of £250, whereas applying the gamma interferon test to the same herd would cost around £1,280.

  From the results of the analysis, 6-monthly tuberculin skin testing over 20 years would incur costs estimated at £294m exceeding the projected benefits in the region of £125m. Even with optimistic assumptions about both its costs and benefits routine use of gamma interferon testing would incur costs (estimated at £1,177m) far exceeding its benefits (in the region of £125m). This approach would not be permitted under present European legislation because gamma interferon testing may only be used in addition to the skin test. Therefore, the estimates understate the costs of routine use of gamma interferon.

  The Committee asked for details of the work to be undertaken on increasing understanding of the gamma interferon blood test and its accuracy (paragraph 12). The selection of research projects at Annex B demonstrates that the Government has focused on having a good understanding of the gamma interferon test and this has been disseminated amongst the scientific community.[6] However, the recent judicial review on gamma interferon showed there was much work to do on increasing understanding and confidence in the farming and veterinary communities.

  Increasing understanding and building confidence in the farming and veterinary communities are about communicating what the gamma interferon test can and cannot do effectively. The Government has already taken some steps through the advice in "Dealing with TB in your herd", an article in Farming Link and discussions held with veterinary bodies (RCVS, BCVA) and the TB Advisory Group. There is more work to do, the review of gamma interferon, which is scheduled to finish in the autumn, will include recommendations aimed at improving confidence in, and communication of, the gamma interferon policy.

  The efficiency of the tuberculin skin test and the factors that affect it are reasonably well understood, and have been evaluated in a large body of evidence published in the international scientific veterinary literature over the years. In its current form the skin test is accepted by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the European Commission as the international standard for ante-mortem diagnosis of TB in cattle herds and individual animals3. From existing evidence the animal-level sensitivity (the proportion of truly infected cattle identified as infected) of the test under UK conditions is estimated to be between 75.0% and 95.5%. Its animal-level specificity of the test (the proportion of non-infected cattle identified as negative) is considered to very high with a median value of 99.5% (78.8% to 100%). Systematic test and slaughter schemes relying on the skin test in its various guises have achieved eradication of bovine TB in those countries where cattle are the only maintenance host of M. bovis infection. This has been demonstrated in Scotland, the North of England and many EU member states.

  The actual performance of the skin test under field conditions is dependent not only on the attributes of the test itself, but also on the diligence of the tester in adhering to the correct procedure. This performance is continuously monitored in Great Britain by analysing a number of TB epidemiological parameters in the British cattle population. Additionally, Animal Health is responsible for managing the skin testing regime on the ground, which includes auditing the quality of tuberculin skin testing by veterinarians and approved lay testers.

  The Committee was interested in details of any further work which Defra is undertaking to assess the efficiency of the skin test (paragraph 12). Defra is not sponsoring at present specific field or laboratory research into the efficiency of the skin test. However, it is clear that reliable estimates of test sensitivity and specificity would facilitate estimation of the number of infected cattle likely to escape detection and the modelling of new, more efficient combinations of testing strategies for bovine TB (within the constraints of EU legislation). In recognition of this, Defra is funding a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic characteristics of tests for bovine TB. The results of this meta-analysis should inform the development of an epidemiological model of TB surveillance strategies in cattle herds, including optimal combinations of diagnostic tests to achieve and maintain freedom from infection under different scenarios. A similar methodology has already been applied to the review of diagnostic tests for TB in farmed deer. The project (SE3238: "Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests and modelling to identify appropriate testing strategies to reduce M. bovis infection in GB herds"), led by VLA epidemiologists with support from a working group of international experts, is due to start in September 2008 and should complete early in 2010. Further details of this project are given in Annex E.

  The Government agrees with the Committee that those organisations (paragraph 23) which represent farmers affected by bovine TB should be considered as potential members of the Bovine TB Partnership Group. However, the form the Group will take, and the extent to which it needs to be resourced, will depend on Defra's discussions with the industry and the veterinary profession. Government has not developed a model for how this group should be constituted and operated in advance; it wants to develop the approach with industry as part of developing a genuine partnership.

  The Government is already working closely with the non-bovine sector to develop an agreed approach, for the control of TB in such species. It has set up a review of the current controls for TB in non-bovine species, including camelids (llamas and, alpacas), goats and cats; and to develop suitable policy options that are effective, affordable and proportionate to the animal and public health risks. A Working Group consisting of representatives from Defra, the Devolved Administrations, Animal Health and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been set-up to take the review forward. Members of the Working Group have met with key industry stakeholders, including the British Llama Society, the British Alpaca Society, the British Camelid Society, the Goat Veterinary Society, the British Goat Society and the Feline Advisory Bureau to gain an understanding of their issues and concerns; assess the risks and impact of bovine TB on their industry; and seek their views on how the risks might be addressed. The Government intends to continue to work with the non-bovine sector, as far as possible, on matters relating to the control of TB in these species.

  The inception and progress of the RBCT provided evidence to show that further research is unlikely to yield conclusive results on the question of the quantitative contribution of badgers to cattle TB and exactly how, where and when transmission occurs (Bourne et al., 2007a). The level of proof required to determine absolute transmission rates in this instance far exceeds that of the association with risk factors required for many other diseases; and in the case of other diseases, it is accepted that such depth of information is not a prerequisite for implementing control measures. There are several reasons for this: the epidemiology; relatively low level transmission; the chronic nature and difficulty in detecting the organism; diagnosis of the disease, and the practicality of being able to reach a conclusive answer that is scientifically sound. The main difficulty is being able to know when and how animals were exposed to TB, because it is a chronic disease and only discloses through testing some time after the animal has been infected.

  The evidence suggests that the contribution of the various means / routes of transmission and the associated transmission rates vary both geographically and over time, therefore there are no fixed values for any of the transmission parameters. It is important to note that reliable estimates of these transmission rate parameters are established for only relatively few other diseases and only under specific experimental circumstances. The extensive investigation over many years is itself indicative of the inherent complexity of the problem.

  This level of uncertainty means the Government needs to focus on what is known. As the Government said in response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, the relative importance of the routes of infection will remain an unknown and both direct and indirect transmission of TB between badgers and cattle may occur in farm buildings and at pasture.

  The Committee also asked for clarification of what the Government meant by "we will continue to consider new ideas" about the transmission of bovine TB (paragraph 14). This means that the Government is open to continue to fund new ideas for further research if they are forthcoming and have the potential to shed further light on the exact means of transmission between cattle and between cattle and badgers. The Government has a long and proven track record of funding a wide range of peer-reviewed research proposals in the area of bovine TB as illustrated by Annexes D and E.[7]

  The Committee also questioned how the Bovine TB Husbandry Working Group will decide what biosecurity measures are effective (paragraph 15). The Husbandry Group has already done this, the first stage of its work was a comprehensive review of current research and other evidence. A list of the measures from existing advice and research, including The Philips Report: TB and Cattle Husbandry, Report of the Independent Husbandry Panel (May 2000) and the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) research on badger visits to farmyards (SE3029), was compiled. The Husbandry Group then worked to identify which of the evidence based measures farmers could have some assurance worked, were practical and gave some value for any investment required. The overview of their work and assessment of the evidence base and explanation of why certain measures have or have not been included in the husbandry advice is available online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/husbandry_background.pdf.

  The Group concluded that every farm is different in terms of what husbandry measures may be effective and a pragmatic approach is needed for many measures related to minimising TB risks. What was clear was that introducing a number of measures and implementing best practice advice which focused on the risks of transmission from both cattle and wildlife might result in a reduction of bovine TB incidence. This conclusion was supported by the findings of case-control studies TB99 and CCS2005 carried out as part of the RBCT which found sufficient evidence that by applying the broad principles of biosecurity it would be possible to reduce the risk of cattle becoming infected by other animals, including badgers, and thus reduce the risk of infection.

  To continue to pursue all avenues of research on vaccines for both cattle and badgers

  To address the scientific uncertainties around oral badger vaccines in terms of both formulation and deployment to maximise the chances of success; and

  To maximise the chances of cattle vaccines being used without trade restrictions by further developing the DIVA test, improving understanding of cattle sensitisation to the skin test by vaccines and increasing research on non-sensitising vaccines.

  By developing a practical understanding of the logistics of vaccination, improving our scientific understanding and working in partnership with the farmers and the wider community at the local level, we hope to improve farmer confidence in vaccination and ensure an oral vaccine can be deployed rapidly once it becomes available. Therefore, the aims of the injectable badger vaccine deployment project are:

  to support the long term goal of oral badger vaccination; and

  to provide an assessment of the viability of injectable vaccination.

  These aims can only be achieved working closely with industry in both the design and execution of the project. The total cost can only be determined once the design is finalised.

  The timetable for licensed badger and cattle vaccines is at Annex C and details of on-going Defra-funded TB vaccine research projects (including costs) are at Annex D.[8]

  "For the average animal, table valuations may provide an efficient, relatively inexpensive, easily administered and realistic means of determining fair compensation, and I accept the contention of the Secretary of State that in most cases the table valuations stipulated in the Order produce a valuation that is a reasonable approximation of true healthy market value. For most animals, I take it that the present scheme is a great improvement on the former provisions involving general individual valuations from the point of view of the public."

  Once the Court of Appeal has had the opportunity to re-consider this case, and deliver its decision, the Government will make clear what the next steps will be.

  
Other factors considered included the public acceptability of culling badgers; the likelihood that landowners would not consent to allow culling on their land; and the likelihood that public order problems could jeopardise the cull and contribute to making disease worse. The cost, and the need to sustain funding of a culling operation for a number of years, were important considerations. It would take time for herd owners to see an overall benefit in reducing cattle herd TB breakdowns. In the Randomised Badger Culling Trial this beneficial effect did not become significant over the culled and surrounding areas until the fourth annual proactive cull. Initially in the RBCT, at the same time a reduction in herd breakdowns was seen in culled areas an increase in herd breakdowns was seen in surrounding culling areas. In considering culling as one of the Government's TB control tools the likelihood that farmers would face increased cattle breakdowns in the short term was likely to endanger support for maintaining the cull. Having considered all these factors, the Government concluded that the risk of ineffective culling making disease worse was too high.

  
The scientific research underway that may produce new evidence comprises the projects recently commissioned to undertake further analysis of the huge amount of data available from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and the ongoing post-culling analysis being led by Christl Donnelly. However new or additional scientific evidence may not sufficiently demonstrate that the level of disease risk from culling can be acceptable enough for the policy to be reviewed. Science cannot be expected to deal with all the aspects of carrying out an effective cull, including practicality.