Oxfordshire County Council reaffirms opposition to badger culling
A council has reaffirmed its opposition to badger culling as a means of eradicating bovine tuberculosis (TB).Oxfordshire County Council last year voted to end badger culling on council-owned land.Lib Dem and Green councillors had branded the practice as "inhumane" while opposition councillors said it could be effective in tackling bovine TB.The government said it was working on a TB eradication package which included establishing a new field force to "increase badger vaccination at pace".
The government announced last year that badger culling would end in England within five years, with the aim of eradicating bovine TB by 2038.As part of a new strategy, badgers will be vaccinated instead of killed and work to develop a separate vaccine for livestock will also be stepped up.Speaking at a cabinet meeting to review the council's decision in December to ban culling on its land, Greens group leader Ian Middleton said that "hundreds of thousands of badgers, including over 8,000 in Oxfordshire, have been needlessly killed and injured using public funds" since 2018.He insisted the policy was "not about disadvantaging farmers" but said culling "has been shown not to be an effective measure in controlling bovine TB"."The focus should instead be on better herd-based measures and accurate forms of testing which can control the disease more humanely and far more effectively," he said."We simply can't go on destroying our wildlife forever."A council report stated that the among the agricultural land the council owns or leases, there were three tenants who keep beef cattle and no land was used for dairy farming.Council leader Liz Leffman said she had written to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) expressing the council's continued opposition to the cull.
'Terrible toll'
Speaking at the main council debate on the issue in December, Conservative opposition councillor Nick Field-Johnson argued that in certain circumstances there was no alternative to badger culling.He said: "It has been clearly shown that allowing culling where the disease remains a major problem has been effective in cutting back on TB."The NFU previously said the new government strategy should not overlook "tried, tested and successful disease control".Defra said it was working to roll out a TB eradication package "that will allow us to end the badger cull and stop the spread of this horrific disease". The strategy includes a national wildlife surveillance programme to better understand the disease in populations and a new Badger Vaccinator Field Force to increase badger vaccinations."TB has devastated British farmers and wildlife for far too long, costs taxpayers more than £100m every year has taken a terrible toll on our badger populations," it said.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
27 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in ‘ludicrous and insulting' blunder
Falklands war veterans slammed the error, which BA promised to investigate FALKLANDS FURY Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in 'ludicrous and insulting' blunder BRITISH Airways has been branded disgraceful for using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falklands Islands on in-flight entertainment screens. The UK's flag carrier airline refers to Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino. Advertisement 3 Port Stanley is the Falkland Islands' only city Credit: Rex 3 255 British military personnel died in the 74-day conflict in 1982 Credit: Getty The British title is relegated to a set of brackets underneath. Ed West, of The Spectator magazine, spotted the blunder and said: 'Curious wording for a British Airways in-flight map.' Last night, BA promised to investigate as the error was described as 'ludicrous' and 'insulting' by Falklands war veterans. Argentina still claims sovereignty but its invading forces lost the 74-day conflict in 1982. Advertisement British forces scrambled halfway around the world to put down General Leopoldo Galtieri's troops after they took Port Stanley in a surprise raid. This Saturday is the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory. Former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, said the name error was 'disrespectful' to islanders. He told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful. Advertisement 'The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. The New British Airways First Class Seat 'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.' Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk by Argentine forces, added: 'I don't know why they would do it. Advertisement 'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley. 'They should change it back as soon as possible. 'This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' In all, 255 British personnel lost their lives defending the islands. Advertisement In 2017 Argentina's senate voted to rename Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino and celebrate Sovereignty Day there if it is ever recaptured. The in-flight map shows only the names of world capitals and not countries' names. It means BA does not reference the Falklands by its Argentinian name Islas Malvinas. British Airways' parent company, International Airlines Group, is based in Spain. Advertisement A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are grateful this has been brought to our attention. 'We'll be reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Plans for a Chinese super-embassy in central London have become a 'walk of shame' for the Government, a former leader of the Conservative Party has said. Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
