What recent steps his Department has taken to combat the spread of bovine tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement.

The TB eradication group was set up in November 2008 to make recommendations on a plan to reduce bovine TB in England and move towards eventual eradication. Alongside our current control measures, we are developing vaccines for cattle and wildlife through research and the development of the badger vaccine deployment project.

I thank the Secretary of State for his courteous answer. He will be aware of the continuing and mounting concern at the spread of bovine TB—and not just within the cattle population. Last year, for example, 119 cases of the disease were found in animals as widespread as cats, dogs, alpacas and goats. In view of the Secretary of State's reply, particularly on vaccination, will he tell me whether he has yet reached a conclusion? What will happen when diseased badgers are captured in the course of the vaccination process? Has he found a way of testing those animals to dispatch those that clearly have bovine TB?

The right hon. Gentleman's point about the emergence of the disease in other animals might be partly explained by the fact that bovine TB was made a notifiable disease only in 2006; we do not know the full extent of its incidence previously, so one would expect more reporting in view of that change. Secondly, it remains the case—despite best efforts—that there is no reliable in-field test, which answers the right hon. Gentleman's question about badgers with TB. Clearly, however, one thing that will have to be looked at in developing the deployment project is how to deal with the problem he raised, which he has discussed with me previously. Identifying in the field a badger with TB, as opposed to one without it, is not quite as easy as some argue.

There can be nothing more distressing to a dairy farmer than seeing the destruction of a herd as a result of positive testing for TB. That is made even worse, however, when asymptomatic cattle tested positive solely on the basis of the gamma interferon test, and the Department refuses to allow a confirmatory test to establish whether the cattle have TB but simply goes ahead with the destruction of the cattle. How can that possibly be sensible for public health policy or, indeed, given that compensation has to be paid, for the Exchequer?

I understand, as do all hon. Members, the traumatic impact that bovine TB has on farmers with affected stock. The gamma interferon test is a valuable addition to our armoury in attempting to deal with this disease. The skin test and the gamma interferon test have different qualities and it is right that we should use the latter alongside the former. It is not always the case that lesions can be found post mortem, but that does not mean that the animals do not have TB. There is a difference in the specificity and the sensitivity of the two tests. I have looked carefully at the issue and I think that the gamma interferon test should be part of the armoury, but I understand completely farmers' feelings when apparently healthy animals are culled.