I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to ask an urgent question, of which I have given notice. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs make a statement on the conclusions of the independent study group on the triplet studies of bovine tuberculosis and what action she proposes to take?

This morning the Government announced new measures to tackle bovine tuberculosis. At 9.30 am, a written statement was published. These measures include a 12-week public consultation on the control of badgers to reduce the disease in high incidence areas, the introduction of a requirement for the pre-movement testing of cattle to reduce cattle-to-cattle spread, and changes to the compensation arrangements that will bring payments for bovine TB into line with those for three other cattle diseases. Copies of all the relevant documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and earlier conversation with me.

This year roughly eight times as many cattle will be slaughtered as in 1997 from reactions to TB tests. Herd incidence is rising at 20 per cent. a year. The whole farming world believes that the Government have spent the past eight years putting off what we all recognise is a difficult decision. However, I welcome the introduction of pre-movement testing, for which we have been calling. I ask the Minister to reflect again on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend Bill Wiggin. I do not think that he fully appreciated the question that was being asked.

Can the Minister tell us whether there will be a regional basis for pre-movement testing or does it apply automatically across the whole country? Will he publish the proposed table for compensation under the new arrangements? Will there be an opportunity for farmers to appeal against whatever is allocated to them?

I welcome the extension of gamma interferon tests, but why do the Government persist in their own little world of trials of testing systems? Is it not clear from other countries that gamma interferon and polymerase chain reaction can significantly improve test results and reduce the culling of unhealthy cattle, and can indicate whether badgers in a particular sett are carrying TB? It is worth emphasising that badgers suffer mercilessly from TB.

Why have the Government not published specific proposals for badger culling? Is it not clear that the low level of trapping in the triplet studies, down to 30 per cent. in some areas, has caused massive disturbance, making badgers move into adjoining areas, thus spreading the disease rather than controlling it? Does the Minister agree, therefore, that only by efficient and humane culling of whole family groups can we be certain of removing infected animals?

We agree that strict cattle controls and better testing are necessary, but alone they will not work. I believe that the Minister will have general cross-party support for a badger culling programme. Such a decision is clearly distressing and unwelcome, but it is inevitable and the further delay for another consultation is unnecessary. We do not wish, however, to create a badger-free zone, so will the Government develop a plan so that badgers from clean areas can be reintroduced once the infection has disappeared? Then we can have what we all desire: healthy cattle and healthy wildlife.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He is right to stress that this is a health and welfare issue for badgers as much as for cattle. It is not quite fair of him to say that the Government have been putting off a decision for six years. After all, the Government initiated the Krebs trials. No previous trials had been conducted by Governments to get to the bottom of the role played by badgers and, indeed, the extent of that role. I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that there is still a lot of uncertainty in the science.

Far from putting anything off, we brought this announcement forward to today; a lot of people did not expect the Government to say anything until 2007—a year after the Krebs trials finish. The hon. Gentleman asked why have a delay and a consultation now, but he should accept that it would not be right to jump to conclusions less than 24 hours after we have received the results from the very long-running and important tests. I want hon. Members and other people to have the opportunity to take a careful and, I hope, calm and rational look at not just the results of the Krebs trials, but the experience gained in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere in the world. The executive summary to the document that we published today states:

"international experience indicates it is not possible to contain and eradicate bovine TB if its background presence in wildlife is left unaddressed."

We go on to say:

"The scientific evidence shows that intensive culling of badgers over large areas can be effective".

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the dilemma that is posed by the results that were published last night by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, which showed a significant benefit in terms of the incidence of bovine TB in the area where badgers are culled, but a significant disbenefit in a circle around the periphery. It also showed, however, that the balance of benefit tended to improve with the intensity of culling and with the size of area. It is clear that a number of uncertainties still exist, which is why the Government think it important to have a proper, full and open consultation.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about pre-movement testing, it will not be regional as such, but for the first year at least, there will be a requirement for all cattle moving out of one and two-yearly testing herds. It will depend on the incidence of TB, rather than on an arbitrary regional boundary. Yes, we will publish the tabulation system for compensation, if it has not been published already in the documents before the House.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I responded to the point made by Bill Wiggin on pre-movement testing and the charges. I did not quite understand it—perhaps someone else may like to put it to me again during this session—but the testing will be a private transaction between a farmer and a vet. Certainly, DEFRA has no intention of profiteering or charging more than would otherwise be charged. Indeed, our objective is to roll out testing by lay testers, which should significantly reduce the cost to farmers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about gamma interferon and PCR. It is important to stress that nothing that we are announcing today means that we can take the foot off the accelerator in terms of the work that is already going on to develop a vaccine both for badgers and for cattle, or to develop a PCR. He is not quite right to suggest that we have already got a reliable PCR test for bovine TB in badger setts. That work will continue, as will the rolling out of the gamma interferon test, which is an important adjunct to, not a replacement for, the skin test.

I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that there will be pre-movement testing. I am sure that he is aware that bovine TB was introduced into Cumbria, following the restocking from the west country after the foot and mouth outbreak, because there was no such testing. It is over 10 years since I asked what progress was being made on a vaccine for bovine TB. There seems to have been no progress. Is that because of a lack of resources or a lack of will?

It is neither of those things. We announced field trials for vaccines for badgers back in the summer and there is more work to be done to progress the field trials to cattle, too. However much money one throws at such difficult scientific, medical and veterinary issues, I am afraid that one cannot hurry the science. Scientific research on the development of an effective vaccine cannot be speeded up—it takes time. That challenge is faced by not only this country, but other countries that suffer similar TB problems.

I welcome the statement. I think that we can wait another 12 weeks given that we have waited several years for Government action to address what we all accept is a crisis in the countryside regarding bovine TB.

The Minister is apparently ruling out any chance of DEFRA being involved in any control measures for badgers and is leaving it all to the farmers. I suspect that he will tell us that that is because of cost, but if the action was successful, compensation payments would reduce, which would cover some of the cost of any control measures implemented by DEFRA itself. How will he ensure that such control measures are effective if all farmers in a specific area do not propose to participate? Does he perceive that farmers who undertake such control measures might be threatened or intimidated? What is the current state of the Krebs trials? Are they just continuing, or will the results be available before the implementation of any measures that he might introduce after the consultation process?

I support the contention that pre-movement tests will result in pretty significant costs, especially for small farmers. At the minimum, could there be a transitional period so that they would not have to meet the full force of those costs straight away? On the tabulated valuations, I am sure that there will be disputes about the value of specific cattle because of their pedigree and so on. Does the Minister intend to have at least an appeal system so that farmers are not just told, "Sorry, that's what your valuation is."? We need a mechanism whereby farmers can challenge the valuation of compensation.

DEFRA is not ruling anything in or anything out, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the document that we have published today, he will note that we suggest three different scenarios for consultation. He is right that none of them gives the state a role in any culling process. It would be carried out by farmers not only for the reason of cost that he suggests, but because of practicality, as well as the capacity of the Government to deliver. Farmers and farming bodies have understood that during conversations that other Ministers and I have held with them. There is a general desire that farmers should have ownership of any policy that is pursued.

On effectiveness and farmer compliance, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on one of the real question marks over how effective a culling policy could be if compliance was not high. The Krebs trials that reported last night showed that the more edges there are, the greater the edge effect. It is better, if possible, to have coherent areas in which culling is intensive and widespread. It is a problem if farmers and landowners in such areas do not want culling to take place on their land because there is no way in which the Government would compel them to cull.

The discussions that we have had with farmers and the industry show that they do not envisage that threats to farmers would be a major problem. On the contrary, they rather think that the scheme would be more effective if it were run by farmers because local farmers could get together to organise any possible cull.

The Krebs trials have not finished yet. Although the culling has finished—the last culling took place about two weeks ago—the independent science group is still evaluating the latest figures. As the group has indicated, we expect that the latest figures will show more benefit than the earlier ones because, as I said, the evidence suggests that the longer repeated culling goes on, the greater the reduction of bovine TB. The data will be provided as they come through during the consultation and, no doubt, afterwards.

On pre-movement testing and costs, I remind the House that the costs to the taxpayer at present are more than £90 million a year. I hope that there is cross-party support for the idea that the taxpayer should not shoulder all the costs and that they should be shared if the Government are doing something that we think will help farmers. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's question about valuations, there is no appeal.

Like most Members with rural or part-rural seats, I have regular discussions with my local branch of the National Farmers Union. I am sure that the NFU will welcome the statement made today, as there is a serious risk of the loss of farmer co-operation, which is so essential if we are to eradicate the disease. I seek the Minister's reassurance on a point made recently to me by the NFU. Is not there at least a theoretical risk to human health? That is starting to concern the NFU, the rural community and all food consumers—all of us in the United Kingdom, in fact—so could my hon. Friend reassure us in that regard?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for today's announcement. He is right: bovine TB is probably our most serious animal health problem. It is devastating for the farmers whom it affects; it is extremely distressing for a farmer to lose some, or in some cases all, of their cattle. It is also a serious health and welfare issue for badgers, but as my hon. Friend rightly says there are potential human health risks—they are not even theoretical—if we do not get the disease under control.

Paragraph 58 of the Minister's consultation document on culling states:

"The scientific evidence shows that intensive culling of badgers over large areas can be effective in helping to prevent the spread of bovine TB", yet paragraph 59 states:

"On the other hand, the scientific data is not available to reliably quantify the beneficial effect."

Given those conflicting statements, will the Minister spell out to the House, against the background of a Department that relies on sound science for its decision-making process, what criteria he will deploy to make the decision at the end of his 12-week consultation period?

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the executive summary. The criteria—this is nothing new—would be that culling was supported by the best available science, and he is right to highlight the fact that there is still a degree of uncertainty about the science. It would have to be successful; we would have to be convinced or satisfied that what we did would be effective, cost-effective, practicable and sustainable.

This is a difficult and contentious issue where it is important to make progress quickly, but is not it important to build on consensus? One point of consensus is improved farm biosecurity. Surely that is why pre- and post-movement testing is so important. Is the Minister committed to the maximum scope for pre-movement testing? When will it start and who will carry the costs?

Pre-movement testing will begin in February. As my hon. Friend will know it has already begun in Scotland where post-movement testing also takes place. He is right that improved biosecurity is important, although it will not solve the problem completely. One thing that the rationalisation of compensation will help to do is to create more incentive for farmers to improve their biosecurity. If we go ahead with badger culling at the end of the consultation period, we shall ensure that where badger culling is licensed, it is in return for certain standards of biosecurity.

Does the Minister recognise that there will be profound disappointment in the farming community that the Government have not seized the nettle and taken action? In the light of the consultation, which we understand will take three months, will the Minister guarantee that at the conclusion of that three-month period a decision to act will be taken? Will he tell us who will take the decision—the bovine advisory group, the Government or DEFRA? Will he give us those assurances now?

I do not accept that today's important announcement should be greeted with disappointment. No previous Government of either political colour have ever consulted on a significant badger cull in this country. I hope that he accepts and appreciates that, and takes that message back to his farmers. As for the consultation, as I said, we have brought it and the decision forward. My firm view is that the time for decision is nigh. It will be made at the end of the consultation by the Government. Of course, we will listen to the independent TB advisory group, and to the opinions expressed during the consultation. In the end, however, it will be a decision for the Government.

I am afraid that I must tell the Minister that my constituents will be very disappointed and that their hearts will be heavy at the thought of another three months spent waiting for yet another consultation. In the hot spot of Cheshire, which is on the front line in the spread of bovine TB, particularly around Audlem in my constituency and Market Drayton, which is the constituency of my hon. Friend Mr. Paterson, may I suggest that the Minister institute a pilot scheme for culling, as he would do in any other area of Government performance, to help to demonstrate the evidence that he has to weigh up in that 12-week period? Pilot schemes have obviously helped in other areas of Government policy making, and the time is ripe for one to be used in this instance.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman reveals a lack of knowledge of bovine TB. The Irish trials took three years to achieve results, despite intensive culling using snares over wide areas. A pilot lasting a few weeks in his constituency, as he has suggested, would show absolutely nothing, and would be worse than useless. Let us have the consultation. Incidentally, he is not right that it is yet another consultation, because no such consultation has been held before. There was no consultation on a policy of badger culling under the Conservative Government, so I do not know what he is talking about.

The Minister stated that bovine TB was a serious problem not just for cattle and dairy farmers but for animal welfare and human health. Has he ever seen a badger with TB, and the distress and pain that it suffers before it dies? Can he give us an accurate figure for the amount of money that the problem will cost the taxpayer in compensation to farmers? It is clear to those of us who are concerned about both the dairy industry and animal welfare that culling is the only effective way to rid this country of TB, which is damaging to our dairy herds.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have certainly seen pictures, films and post-mortems of badgers with TB, which is clearly not very nice for them. It is difficult to tell whether or not a live badger has TB, although some people claim to be able to do so. I have seen badgers near my constituency in Devon wandering around during the day, which was not at all usual in my childhood but has become commonplace. As for the cost of TB, as I said earlier, last year, it cost the taxpayer more than £90 million, a good proportion of which was compensation for slaughtered cattle.

When the Minister considers the question of costs and the lack of an appeal, will he bear in mind the fact that farmers—usually, small farmers—perhaps with closed herds, have lost all their spirit for farming as a result of what has happened to their herds in recent years? He should not forget that we are talking about some of the poorest farmers in the country, who will now be exposed to the full cost of veterinary charges. I beg him to think of the consequences for poor, small farmers.

I shall certainly do so, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Governments have a responsibility to the taxpayer. Three independent reports have been produced, all of which show that serious overpayment has been made in a significant number of cases. In addition, a higher payment was made for bovine TB than for other cattle diseases, which is why we are introducing the change to the compensation payments.

While it is true that bovine TB is falling in Northern Ireland in contrast with the significant rise in other parts and regions of the United Kingdom, a wildlife cull in hot-spot areas is essential. It is not welfare-friendly to protect TB-infected wildlife, so a cull would surely be good not only for farmers but for wildlife suffering from the disease.

It is important to remember that this is a devolved issue, and I am sure that my colleagues responsible for agricultural issues in Northern Ireland will study the consultation documentation as closely as everyone else in the House.

It really is incredible, having spent £2 billion not curing TB with current methods, that we should have yet another consultation. To secure agreement on a method of culling, the Government must seek a derogation from the 1979 Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Article 9 allows for derogations, but appendix IV lists a number of prohibited culling methods. How long will it take to secure a derogation, and which methods of culling will the Minister seek?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This is not yet another consultation—it is the first ever consultation. He is also wrong about the need for a derogation from the Berne convention.

The Minister has already pointed out that if a badger cull is to be effective, it must be intensive and cover a sufficiently large area. May I draw a comparison with the contiguous cull policy on foot and mouth which, although distressing at the time, led to an early elimination of the disease? Will the Minister's attempts to eliminate TB be as strong as his attempts to eliminate foot and mouth?

I was not at the Department during the foot and mouth outbreak, but whatever we decide to do on bovine TB, it will require considerable resolve. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the scientific evidence appears to suggest that fiddling around with small-scale localised culling is at best ineffective and at worst probably makes things considerably worse. The stark choice that we may well face after the consultation is to do nothing or to do something quite serious.

I regret that there will not be an appeal system, so will the Minister ensure that valuations of cattle are published and updated on his website so that people know where they stand? I think that he said that the Government will not compel a farmer to cull, so may I have a reply to my letter to the Secretary of State about the appalling bullying of my constituents in Pensax? Finally, he asked for clarification of a question that I asked earlier. If the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is paying a certain price to vets for the test, will he ensure that vets cannot charge farmers more for the same work?

That will be a matter between farmers and their vets, as it is a private transaction, but we hope that in time there will be more lay testers, which will reduce the cost of testing for farmers. As for compelling farmers to participate, I do not recall the connection with the constituency case that he raised, but I shall check and write to him. In the event of a badger cull going ahead, it is not realistic to expect any Government to compel landowners or farmers to cull badgers on their land. However, in some of the worst affected areas, the level of compliance will be high, and we would do what we could to encourage compliance, and I believe that farmers and farm industry representatives would try to do that as well. There should be encouragement and exhortation, but I would stop short of compulsion. Valuations will be updated regularly, and both the valuation regime and the pre-movement testing arrangements will be constantly reviewed.

I welcome the statement. Unlike many of my colleagues, I do not think that it is unreasonable to conduct a 12-week consultation after six years. Compliance, however, is a major issue, and it is linked to the financial help that the Government can give small farmers on pre-movement testing. Will he address that issue?

No, not at this stage. We would very much like a proper system of farm insurance in this country, as most countries have, whereby farmers pay into a fund which can cover such costs. In the UK we still have a system that is based almost entirely on the taxpayer. We are trying to move away from that, so what the hon. Gentleman is recommending would be a retrograde step. I hope our announcement today shows farmers that the Government are serious about tackling TB, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the 12-week consultation.

To identify better the spread of bovine TB, should the Government be doing more to encourage the analysis of badgers that fall victim to road kill?

I am not sure. The road-kill testing has not been incredibly helpful to us in identifying areas of high TB, or even the relationship between areas of high TB in badgers and areas of high TB in cattle. It is quite expensive and in all these matters decisions must be made about what is the most effective way of spending taxpayers' money to tackle the disease. Given the announcement that I made today, I am not sure that spending a lot more money on testing road-kill badgers for TB is the most effective way forward.