The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on the bovine TB eradication programme. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Lywydd. I would like to update Members on the Welsh Government’s refreshed TB eradication programme.

Our 2012 framework for bovine TB eradication in Wales comes to an end this year. It is time to take stock, reflect on our successes, learn lessons and consider a refreshed approach. Since 2012, we’ve seen a downward trend in the number of new cases of bovine TB in cattle herds in Wales. The number of new TB incidents has fallen by 19 per cent compared to the same period last year. Additionally, the number of herds under TB restrictions has fallen by 10 per cent. The increase in the number of cattle slaughtered in Wales because of TB is primarily due to increased, targeted use of the gamma interferon blood test to help clear infection in recurrent and persistent breakdowns.

To illustrate, we are seeing an improving situation, in comparison to the same period last year, 68 fewer herds are under TB restrictions because of a TB incident in Wales. Further, the latest figures show the number of new TB incidents is currently at its lowest level in 10 years. I’m keen to build on this success and speed-up progress with a set of evidence-based, enhanced measures. We must focus on our long-term objective of TB eradication. Our approach to disease eradication has focused on all sources of TB infection, including cattle-to-cattle and wildlife-spread TB and will continue to do so.

The refreshed programme contains a comprehensive and coherent suite of measures, including a new, regional approach to the eradication of TB with three categories of areas based on TB incidence, strengthening of cattle controls, wildlife measures and changes to compensation. We will also be revisiting our programme governance.

Today, I am launching a 12-week consultation on our refreshed approach. I would like all parties who are affected by bovine TB or have an interest in our programme to consider our proposals and provide comments, which will help shape our plans. We’ve now completed almost seven years of annual herd testing, which continues to identify infection early and provides an invaluable data set demonstrating the differing disease picture across Wales. I intend to maintain annual herd testing for as long as necessary.

We know from the TB dashboard that disease incidence is not uniform across Wales and there are different drivers of the disease in each area. As I explained in the debate last month, we are now in a position to take a more regionalised approach to TB eradication measures. We will use three categories of areas across Wales: low, intermediate and high-TB incidence. For each area, we will tailor our approach to reflect the disease conditions and risks. We want to protect the low-TB area and drive down incidence in the intermediate and high-TB areas. In order to achieve these goals, the measures to be deployed in each area must be targeted and proportionate, and I would like to hear stakeholder’s views on our proposals, which will contribute to our long-term objective of TB eradication.

We’ve been targeting herds that have been under TB restrictions for over 18 months with enhanced measures. We are now extending this to include problem areas and herds suffering recurring TB breakdowns. All of these chronic breakdown herds will have individual, bespoke action plans, developed in partnership with the farmer, vet and Animal and Plant Health Agency, aimed at clearing up infection. These action plans will include measures such as increased sensitivity and frequency of testing and removing inconclusive reactors. The top 10 longest ongoing TB breakdowns alone have cost the Government over £10 million in compensation since 2009. Some of these herds have been under TB restrictions for more than 10 years. It is anticipated that expanding this aspect of the programme will target disease in these chronic breakdowns and reduce the overall weight of infection.

I’m also seeking views on imposing compensation penalties for animals moved within a multisite restricted holding in chronic herd breakdowns if they are subsequently slaughtered as a result of TB. We already reduce compensation in cases where cattle are brought into a restricted herd under licence in order to better share the financial risk, whilst helping farmers stay in business. This approach will further strengthen our programme by managing the disease risk posed by certain movements of cattle within a holding. The majority of farmers comply with the TB rules, however those who do not should be penalised because they are putting our aims on TB eradication at risk. I am, therefore, considering applying penalties to common agricultural policy subsidy payments for certain breaches of the TB Order. Linking behaviours and compliance with the rules to financial penalties is already embedded within our programme. Farmers must accept there will be financial consequences if they do not to follow the requirements.

Farmers should also consider risk when purchasing cattle. Informed purchasing schemes have made a significant contribution to TB eradication in both Australia and New Zealand. These countries are leading the way in TB eradication and we must continue to learn lessons from them and replicate the most useful controls. To help farmers make informed decisions about the health of the cattle they wish to purchase, I am considering the proposal to make an informed purchasing scheme mandatory in Wales.

There is evidence in some chronic herd breakdowns that wildlife is involved in the disease-transmission process. I have asked officials to engage with vets and wildlife experts to develop ways to break the transmission cycle in chronic herd breakdowns where it can be demonstrated that badgers are contributing to the problem. I will be clear: we will continue to rule out an English-style cull of badgers, with farmers free-shooting infected and healthy badgers themselves. However, a range of other options are available, including learning from the pilot in Northern Ireland. This involves cage-trapping badgers and humane killing of infected animals. In high-incidence areas where there is a chronic herd breakdown and where we have objective that confirmation badgers are infected, we are considering whether a similar approach might be acceptable and appropriate, again working with vets and wildlife experts.

Vaccination still has a role to play in our approach to TB eradication and the availability of badger vaccine is something I am closely monitoring. Vaccine specifically for use in badgers will not be available in 2017. The availability of other vaccine is still an option we are exploring. However, it is premature to think about the future deployment of the vaccine until we know exactly when the supply will be restored.

Every farm, without exception, whether it has suffered a TB breakdown or not, should always follow good biosecurity and husbandry practices. Biosecurity is key in protecting animals from bovine TB and other serious animal diseases, and farmers should be able to assess their risk. Working with farmers and their vets and building on our earlier work in this area, I intend to develop a single, standardised biosecurity scoring tool, which can be used by every farmer to assess levels of biosecurity on their farms.

I am seeking views on reducing the TB compensation cap to £5,000. This cap will not affect the majority of farmers. Based on the figures from last year, a cap of £5,000 would affect 1 per cent of cattle valued, but would offer savings in the region of £300,000 a year. The purpose of the cap is to protect the Welsh Government in relation to the cost of the highest-value animals. Since 2011, valuations for pedigree cattle have been around twice as much as the average market value. This suggests that, despite the measures we have in place, overcompensation is occurring in some instances.

Finally, I propose to revisit the governance of the TB eradication programme. The current programme structure has been in place since 2008, and with the new regionalised approach to TB eradication and launch of a reflect approach, this is the right time to review the governance arrangements of our programme. Following the consultation, I will consider all responses and officials will draw up a revised programme of activities. I intend to publish this refreshed TB eradication programme in the spring, with a view to the new measures being introduced from April of next year. This refreshed TB eradication programme will put us in a stronger position to ensure we continue to make progress towards a TB-free Wales.

May I start by thanking the Cabinet Secretary for bringing a comprehensive statement to the Assembly this afternoon? And may I say at the outset that there has been a void in terms of policy in terms of what the Government has proposed to do in eradicating TB in cattle, in the fact vaccines weren’t available and the fact that the Government had been reliant on a vaccine to deal with the disease? Now it seems to me that the Government, in considering this statement, does accept the current situation as it exists, and that we do need to tackle the disease in the wildlife reservoir as well, and that we also need to consider alternative options. In that context, may I tell her that farmers and the agricultural industry more widely will expect that to happen? Although the number of herds that are infected is reducing, the intensity of infection is increasing and, as she has outlined to be fair, in her statement today, in some areas the disease is almost in the ground and it’s impossible to deal with without tackling the wildlife reservoir too.

May I just ask a few specific questions, therefore, because this is the beginning of a consultation process, as the Cabinet Secretary has already outlined? First of all, she says that this consultation and the new ideas proposed in her statement will lead to a refreshed approach to the governance of the TB eradication programme. Of course, the programme is something that has been given the consent of the European Commission and she will know, as I do, that a number of farmers would be concerned that any plan that we have in Wales should pass the tests put in place by the Commission to ensure that exports from Wales are respected, and also, as we leave the European Union, that that situation should continue. So, Cabinet Secretary, can you just outline how you will ensure that the new, refreshed programme will be given that approval?

A gaf i droi at y clefyd a'r gydnabyddiaeth yn eich datganiad bod y clefyd yn cael ei drosglwyddo rhwng bywyd gwyllt a gwartheg, er nad yw hynny bob amser yn drosglwyddiad uniongyrchol, ond fel rhywbeth sy'n gynhenid ​​yn yr amgylchedd a’r borfa? Rydych chi’n cydnabod yn y datganiad bod yn rhaid i ni reoli'r clefyd o fewn y boblogaeth bywyd gwyllt, yn enwedig, yn eich geiriau chi, mewn ardaloedd sydd ag achosion cronig o TB, lle mae wir yn broblem.

A gaf i groesawu’r ffaith eich bod yn dweud na fydd unrhyw ddifa yn digwydd fel sydd wedi'i wneud yn Lloegr? Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n bwysig. Rwy’n derbyn hynny'n llwyr ac nid wyf yn credu bod yr hyn y mae Lloegr wedi dewis ei wneud wedi bod yn arbennig o lwyddiannus o gwbl. Fodd bynnag, rydych chi yn derbyn y dylid mynd i'r afael â'r cysylltiad rhwng bywyd gwyllt a'r clefyd mewn gwartheg. Nid oes gennym frechiad. A allwch chi ddweud ychydig mwy am sut y gallech chi ystyried gweithredu’r hyn y gwnaethoch chi ddewis ei gynnwys fel tystiolaeth yn eich datganiad ynglŷn â dysgu o'r profiad yng Ngogledd Iwerddon? A allwch chi egluro y gall hynny, i bob pwrpas, olygu y gallai grŵp o foch daear heintiedig gael eu lladd yn hytrach na mochyn daear unigol ac, wrth gwrs, bwysleisio bod hyn yn ymwneud â chael gwared ar y clefyd ym mhoblogaeth y moch daear? Nid yw'n golygu difa moch daear yn gyffredinol neu ddifa moch daear mewn ardal benodol. Rydym wedi gorfod symud ymlaen o'r sefyllfa yr oeddem ynddi rai blynyddoedd yn ôl lle rhoddwyd cynnig ar gael meysydd gweithredu yng Nghymru. Mae gennym brofiad o frechu yn yr un ardal weithredu benodol yr wyf i’n ei chynrychioli ac mae hi’n amlwg yn amser yn awr i fynd i’r afael â’r haint ymysg y boblogaeth bywyd gwyllt yn y ffermydd hynny lle mae achosion o heintiau yn digwydd dro ar ôl tro.

Dim ond i droi yn benodol at eich cynnig ynglŷn â gosod cap ar iawndal. Sut ydych chi'n mynd i sicrhau na fydd yr un ffars a gawsom y tro diwethaf y buom ni’n edrych ar daliadau iawndal yn digwydd eto? Rwy’n derbyn eich bod eisiau sicrhau nad oes gorbrisio yn digwydd yn y broses yma, ond ai gosod cap ar iawndal yw’r ffordd o wneud hynny, yn hytrach na chanolbwyntio mwy ar sicrhau prisio cywir a’r defnydd cywir o’r gweithdrefnau prisio hynny, fel yr ydych chi’n ei wneud yng nghyd-destun ffermio? Tybed beth sydd wedi gwneud i chi feddwl mai gosod cap ar iawndal, sy’n ddull eithaf eithafol o fynd i’r afael â’r broblem—mae’n broblem eithaf mawr, rwy’n derbyn hynny—ond mae’n ddull eithaf eithafol hefyd. Nid yw'n ystyried gwir werth yr anifeiliaid pedigri, ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth rwy’n credu y bydd ffermwyr yn awyddus i dderbyn sicrwydd yn ei gylch.

A allwch chi ddweud ychydig mwy am y potensial i wneud prynu doeth yn orfodol yng Nghymru? Mae hyn yn rhywbeth y gwnes i fy hun ei drafod ddoe ym marchnad y Trallwng. Nid yw’r pryder yn y fan honno yn ymwneud cymaint â’r hyn a allai ddigwydd yng nghyd-destun Cymru, ond pryder ynglŷn â sut y mae hynny'n effeithio ar gludo trawsffiniol, sut y mae'n effeithio gwerthiant-caiff llawer o anifeiliaid eu gwerthu yn y Trallwng, fel y gallwch ddychmygu, ar draws y ffin-ac yn arbennig y ffordd nad yw rhai prynwyr gwartheg o’r tu allan i Gymru, yn gynyddol, yn ymgysylltu mewn gwirionedd â’r farchnad wartheg yng Nghymru, oherwydd bod ganddynt bryderon ynglŷn â statws TB yng Nghymru. Efallai y bydd rhai pethau eraill yr ydych wedi eu nodi yn y datganiad yn helpu â’r pryderon hynny, ond rwyf eisiau deall sut y gall prynu doeth weithio yng Nghymru pan fo llawer iawn o’n gwerthiannau yn digwydd yn drawsffiniol, a pha un a fyddwch chi’n modelu hynny cyn ei gyflwyno efallai.

Felly, y peth olaf i’w ddweud yw fy mod yn cydnabod ac yn croesawu’r ffaith bod yna ddull rhanbarthol wedi’i nodi yma yn eich datganiad. Mae'n rhywbeth y mae Plaid Cymru wedi gofyn amdano yn gyson, ac rydym ni’n dymuno bod yr amrywiaeth ehangaf posibl o adnoddau ar gael, nid dim ond yn uniongyrchol i ffermwyr, ond i'r Llywodraeth hefyd, i fynd i’r afael â'r clefyd yn seiliedig ar angen lleol a statws y clefyd. Rwy'n credu mai'r peth olaf i’w ofyn ac i’w ddweud yw, fel yr ydych chi’n nodi yn eich cynnig, pan mai’r nod yw mynd i'r afael â TB sydd wedi’i wreiddio’n ddwfn drwy weithio gyda ffermwyr ac arbenigwyr a milfeddygon, y byddwch chi’n sicrhau bod yr hyn yr ydym wedi’i ddysgu gan Ogledd Iwerddon a’r potensial sy’n bodoli i dargedu’r boblogaeth bywyd gwyllt mewn gwirionedd, yn ddewis ar gyfer y ffordd ymlaen.

Diolch, Simon Thomas, for those questions. I refute allegations that there’s been a lull in our TB eradication programme since we announced we wouldn’t be vaccinating badgers. That’s just one part of the programme; we have other measures, and that includes the animal testing regime. We have been testing much harder than we were. We’ve got Cymorth TB. We’ve had informed purchasing, albeit, obviously, a voluntary scheme. But I do think that that is just one part of our scheme.

In answer to your question regarding the governance of the boards being looked at, there are several aspects to that. If we’re going to have this regionalisation, obviously, we are out to consultation now—it’s a 12-week consultation; it ends on 10 January—and there are a lot of things that we haven’t got the answers to yet, and I do really want to consider the responses we get. We need to look at the boards because the boards are based on regions now that wouldn’t concur with the regions that we would have going forward. So, I think we need to look at that. I also want to look at the gender balance of our boards, and I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear me say that.

In relation to the Northern Ireland—. And I’m very pleased you welcome making it very clear that there won’t be an England-style cull, but I have looked at the Northern Ireland pilot very, very closely over the summer. What I want to see are those bespoke action plans brought forward. We’re not going to consult on that—that will happen—and it’s really important that we have—. You know, no-one’s got the answer. We really need to work together. I don’t have the answers standing here; farmers don’t have the answers. It’s really important that we work together. So, what I want to see are those bespoke action plans drawn up with the farmer, with their vets, with our vets if necessary, and with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to make sure that we are dealing with that. It has proven quite difficult, I think. We have little understanding about how TB spreads between cattle and badgers, so it’s very important that farmers understand the badger activity on their farms, and that we all work together in relation to that. And you’re right, it is about the health and welfare of the badger population also. So, I have asked, as I say, officials to look at that very closely.

In relation to trade, I know that there have been concerns mentioned about trade. It’s not just Wales that has TB; there are other parts of the EU where bovine TB is present. I think it’s really important that we maintain our reputation for absolutely the highest animal health and welfare standards. I was in SIAL in Paris yesterday, where it was very clear that people accepted that our produce was of absolutely the highest quality. It was mentioned to me several times that people understand that Wales has that very high animal health and welfare standard.

In relation to capping compensation, I’ve thought about that again very carefully. It’s out to consultation, as I say, and if people feel that—. As you say, it is a large nut and maybe it is a large sledgehammer, but I think we do need to look at that. We have to understand that, going forward, coming out of the EU, 10 per cent of our TB eradication programme budget is from the EU—it’s about £2 million to £3 million that we’re not going to have. So, we need to look at ways of saving money. I will, again, look very closely at the consultation responses we have in relation to the compensation. I understand farmers’ concerns. It was actually a farmer himself who said to me, ‘We can insure our cattle if we feel they’re of a much higher value.’ We can look at that, as I say, when we have the responses to the consultation.

Informed purchasing, again, that would be part of the consultation, but I think that there is a great deal of work that we can do to help farmers mitigate the risk of buying infected cattle. And it’s not just working with farmers, it’s working with markets, and I know we’ve encouraged markets to put boards up when cattle are being sold, to have information around that. But, we need to look at cross-border. Obviously, if it has an impact across the border, I’m very happy to look at that, coming out of the consultation.

Can I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon? I’d like to state for the record that my parents-in-law’s farm has been affected by bovine TB over the last 15 years, and I know from personal experience how devastating it is.

Whilst I welcome the Welsh Government’s consultation on its refreshed approach, the Cabinet Secretary will not be surprised to hear that I believe the measures included in the approach do not yet go far enough to eradicate this awful disease. I believe that a full holistic approach is now needed, which includes using all the tools in the box to eliminate bovine TB in both our cattle and wildlife populations. I’m extremely disappointed that today’s statement does not yet include a much more holistic approach to tackling this disease in our wildlife.

Indeed, the European Court of Auditors’ report into the eradication, control and monitoring programmes of animal diseases, published in April, recognised that more consideration was needed for bovine TB with targeted measures for wildlife. Therefore, my first question to the Cabinet Secretary is whether or not she accepts the findings of the commission. And, in line with that thinking, and in addition to monitoring developments in Northern Ireland, what other specific steps will she now take to eradicate bovine TB in the wildlife population? Indeed, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will tell us how long the Welsh Government intends to monitor developments in Northern Ireland with vets and wildlife experts, or whether these developments will actually be part of the 12-week consultation.

There are also concerns regarding the testing of cattle, given the age and sensitivity of the current test. We know that the current test has a sensitivity range of 80 to 90 per cent, and so the Welsh Government must work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the veterinary industry to re-evaluate whether the test is, indeed, fit for purpose or not. Today’s statement refers to the increased use of the gamma interferon test, but perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could tell us how the Welsh Government is assessing gamma interferon tests and antibody tests, and whether it’s her intention to see any other new testing procedures rolled out. Indeed, is there any scope within the consultation to look at testing procedures? I understand that, last year, the Cabinet Secretary invested in a gamma testing facility in Carmarthen, and perhaps she could update Members on that work.

I accept that previous Welsh Governments have supported a vaccination policy and I agree with today’s statement that vaccination still has a role to play. However, there is still much more work to be done to understand how much TB is actually spread from cattle to cattle, from cattle to badgers, and from badger to badger, which would undoubtedly impact the performance of any vaccine. I note from the statement today that the Cabinet Secretary has asked officials to engage with vets and wildlife experts to develop ways to break the transmission cycle. Therefore, can the Cabinet Secretary provide a little bit more detail about the type of engagement she wants to see?

Now, today’s statement also mentions a regional approach, with three categories of TB areas across Wales being assigned, based on incident levels, and that the Welsh Government is looking at different strategies for these different categories. Whilst I understand that a risk-based approach must be taken to reflect regional differences in terms of the prevalence of the disease, it’s also essential that any new area risk-based strategies are not disproportionate for farmers and that farmers are not facing impossibly stringent controls. Therefore, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what measures will be deployed in each of the new category areas and how those measures will actually be proportionate for farmers.

Of course, as the statement recognises, increased biosecurity measures should be considered an essential part of any bovine TB strategy, and I hope the Welsh Government is not just providing more guidance and orders to farmers about on-farm and off-farm biosecurity, but providing additional financial support to offset any increased costs too. Indeed, could the Cabinet Secretary tell us if there will be an opportunity for farmers to apply for funding from the rural development programme for biosecurity tools, such as cattle-handling facilities and badger-proof feed troughs, for example?

Llywydd, I’ve been very clear that I want to see a strategy in place to tackle bovine TB that uses all of the tools at the Welsh Government‘s disposal. We must properly eradicate bovine TB in our wildlife population as well as our cattle population, and the only way to do that is to include a culling of infected badgers in a humane way. I note that she has not yet completely ruled that out in today’s statement. So, I welcome some of the measures in the Cabinet Secretary’s refreshed approach today, but I believe the Government’s approach does not yet go far enough. I want to make it clear to the Cabinet Secretary that we on this side of the Chamber will continue to scrutinise her policies in this area, and we will also continue to call for the Government to do the right thing by adopting a fully holistic approach to eradicating bovine TB once and for all. Thank you.

I thank Paul Davies for his comments and that series of questions. I think we are taking a holistic approach. I think it’s very important that we do look at the tools at our disposal. Please remember this is a consultation and I will certainly consider all the responses we have before making any decisions. I’ve told officials I want it to be very quick, so the consultation will close on 10 January, and I want the refreshed programme to be in place certainly by the start of the financial year, so we’ll respond to the consultation in the spring.

You referred to the skin test that we undertake, and whilst I recognise it is the only test that’s recognised by the relevant European legislation, a recent estimate of comparative skin test performance in Great Britain established it has a specificity of 99.98 per cent. So, only one animal in 5,000 is likely to give a false-positive test result. The test has been used worldwide in very successful TB eradication programmes.

You referred to monitoring Northern Ireland. What I said was I’d been looking at the pilot over the summer. I’ve also looked at what’s gone on in Australia and in New Zealand. Australia has been declared TB free, and that’s my ambition for Wales. I think the regionalisation aspect of this is what’s very important in this, because, if we look at the areas that we’ve deemed low, intermediate and high, it’s been based on epidemiology. There will be different approaches in each one. Looking at north-west Wales, which will be a low TB area, I really believe that, if some of the measures that we’re consulting on are then put in place, that could be the first TB-free area of Wales, and we are allowed to do that within the European legislation—a member state or part of a member state is allowed to do that. So, if we look at the criteria around that, that could possibly be the first area, and I think that would be a very positive message to send out there.

So, the priority for—. You asked about the different approaches we will take for the different areas, so the priority for that area is to prevent the disease being introduced through the movement of undetected infected cattle, so to keep the incidence low and then become TB free. So, we’ll protect that area, and, because there’s very little, if any, endemic disease in that area, pre-movement testing will no longer be required for movements from that area. I will continue to have herds tested annually to make sure that we catch disease at the earliest opportunity. As I said, there’s no recognised significant reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population in that area.

In relation to the intermediate TB areas, we anticipate again, if the disease situation improved in those two areas, it’s likely the low TB area then would grow to encompass those areas. Again, we’ll test herds annually to make sure that we catch the disease at the earliest opportunity, but we need to protect those areas from it being introduced through cattle movements from the higher disease areas—I think that’s really important—and better deal with the level of disease that is already there. It’s also important that we prevent the disease from becoming established in the badger population there. Again, there’s very little evidence of TB infection in wildlife there. We’ve had only one positive badger found dead in both of the intermediate areas.

In relation to the high TB areas, we’re going to increase whole-herd testings there to six-monthly to try and find the infection earlier. Again, if there’s a high number of recurring breakdowns, it suggests either a high re-infection rate or infection that persists in the herd even after its declared TB free, because I think that’s been happening also. Local spread seems to be a significant factor. So, again, we’ve had our badger found dead survey, and, whilst we have to be careful how we interpret those results, that has confirmed the presence of TB in the badger population in those areas.

Like Simon Thomas and Paul Davies, I welcome this statement today. There’s a lot in it with which we can all agree. I particularly commend the Cabinet Secretary for the work that she’s doing in respect of biosecurity, and that’s undoubtedly had a significant impact on containing the spread of this disease. I’m not quite as sanguine as she is about the extent of her successes generally, so far. It is true that there has, in recent months, been a dip in the number of new herds affected, but then there are fewer herds to be affected. So, the extent to which this is an example of the success of the policy is debatable. What we do know is that nearly 10,000 cattle were culled in the year to July. That’s an increase following on the increase in the previous year and an increase on the year before that, and it still remains to be seen how far this trend continues.

I’m sure she’ll agree with me that, looking at this whole problem in terms of animal welfare, we have to consider the welfare of badgers as well as cattle, and it’s certainly not humane to badgers to allow TB to remain endemic in the wildlife population. So, taking out the infected badgers is good for badgers in general in the longer term. It’s certainly not humane to have an ineffective policy that leads to the infection of cattle, nor is it humane to allow badgers to infect other badgers. I think, in this respect also, it’s important to recognise that, whatever the merits of vaccination, it isn’t a cure for TB, because it doesn’t actually deal with the problem in an infected badger. It merely makes it more difficult for those badgers to be vectors for others.

I didn’t agree with what she said in answer to one of the questions earlier on about how there’s not really a full understanding of how the disease is transmitted from animal to animal, as though there were some doubt about the transmission mechanism from wildlife. Simon Thomas said that this disease is endemic in the soil in certain areas. Well, if it’s endemic in the soil, it’s only because of the faeces and urine of badgers and other wild animals or cattle that are affected. So, taking out the infected wildlife is going to make a significant difference to the existence of this disease.

The experience in Ireland is particularly instructive, I think, in this respect. There’s been a 50 per cent plus reduction in TB since Ireland started a culling programme. Therefore, I think it’s very important—and taking the words in the statement at their face value—that this is now something that the Cabinet Secretary is prepared to consider. This statement is very much to be welcomed. Again, if we look at the experience in New Zealand, that also is particularly instructive, not because of badgers but because of the equivalent in New Zealand, which is possums. In 1990 in New Zealand they had seven times the infection rate in the UK, by 1997 it was roughly equal, and, in 2011, the infection rate in New Zealand was 40 times less than in the UK, so control of possums has gone hand in hand with the control of TB. So, I think that we can welcome the chink of light that we see in the statement through the regionalisation of the policy. And, in areas of high infection, if it is going to be a reality that we may try culling as a mechanism to reduce the infection rates, then that is very much to be welcomed.

We heard from the Cabinet Secretary for finance earlier on about the problems that we’re going to be facing in the years ahead about finding the money for all sorts of things that we want to spend money on. The vaccination programme has been—I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree—a very expensive way of attempting to deal with TB. We know that, in 2015, £922,000 was spent to vaccinate 1,118 badgers. That’s an average of £825 per badger. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that, in value for money terms, that isn’t very, very good, and therefore, culling is likely to be not only an effective means of controlling disease, but also one that gives us best value for money.

I absolutely don’t agree with that. I don’t think you can compare vaccination and culling at all. In relation to your comments around Northern Ireland, as I’ve said, I think—certainly looking at what they have been doing—it has had a very positive impact on the badger population also, and I’m very concerned about the health and welfare, of course, of badgers too. I’m not pre-empting what will be in the bespoke action plans, but what we are saying is that it’s really important that the vets, the farmers and the APHA get together to get these action plans, particularly for these chronic herd breakdowns. I mentioned that the 10 longest herd breakdowns that we have, together—106 years they have been under restrictions. To me, that’s not sustainable, and I don’t think it’s acceptable either.

In relation to infection from cattle to cattle or cattle to badger, there is a lot more that we need to learn. Again, I’ve asked my officials to work with the APHA and with vets and individual farmers around this. We held a workshop, I think it was on 10 October, where badger ecologists and experts in cattle husbandry systems—and also grassland management, because I think that’s very important too—met to discuss the options for minimising the risk of contact, both direct and indirect, between the two species. I think that what’s really important—and I mentioned it before—is that farmers know the level and the areas of badger activity on their farms for them to be then able to take precautions to prevent that contact. So, for instance, we’ve had analysis or research that’s shown that badgers visit farm buildings where they get their bedding from or where there is a whole crop of silage, for instance. So, I think it’s really important that that sort of information is known, and sometimes it’s not known, and sometimes it’s inaccurate. So, I think that’s an area where farmers can also help in this eradication that we want to see of TB.

From my meetings with stakeholders, including groups of farmers in my constituency, kindly organised by the FUW and the NFU, but also meetings that I’ve held with animal welfare organisations, I know that the adoption of a balanced and bespoke approach to tackling bovine TB, outlined in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement, will be of reassurance to them. We know that 95 per cent of infection is estimated to be cattle to cattle. So, the Welsh Government’s focus on strengthened cattle controls is indeed the correct one.

I have two questions. Research recently published by Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London in August suggested that contamination passes through infected pasture and dung. This has repercussions for farming practices like slurry spreading. What assessment has the Welsh Government given to this evidence in determining its approach? Secondly, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food data collected over a 25-year period suggested that some types of animal, including fallow deer and farm cats, had a higher prevalence of TB than badgers. How will the Welsh Government consider these possible reservoirs of the disease in its approach?

Thank you. I was very pleased that Vikki Howells undertook visits arranged by the two farming unions. I think it's really important, and certainly since I came into post, that's been my message to the farming unions: that we should encourage as many Members as possible to visit farms and learn more about the sector.

In relation to your two specific questions, officials are currently assessing Rosie Woodroffe’s analysis to help us go forward. I said, as soon as I came into post, and because of the framework coming to an end from 2012, that it was really important to refresh the programme. So, I promised to go out with a refreshed programme to consultation in the autumn, but that's currently being assessed at the moment.

Whilst I accept that there could be reservoirs of disease in other wildlife groups, I think it is widely accepted and recognised that it is more prevalent in badgers.

We are already out of time for this statement, and it is a substantial and detailed statement by the Cabinet Secretary, so if I could ask for brief questions from Assembly Members, then I will try to call a few additional Assembly Members so that they have an opportunity to ask their questions. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Lywydd, and thank you, Minister, for the statement. May I declare an interest, as my wife is a partner in a farm business?

I give a cautious welcome to the statement as it was delivered today. I think it does move us in the right direction, but, of course, time will tell, because what we have is a consultation document, or what is being published by the Government today, rather than the final strategy.

I warmly welcome the fact that the Government is moving to a more regionalised model. I am certainly one of a number of people who have long called for a move to a situation where the response corresponds to the risk level, and I think that’s a positive development. A number of farmers will have holdings, of course, in more than one area, and I’m sure that you have given that some thought, but perhaps you could explain briefly what practical difference they will see.

We also hope, of course, as the status of the disease changes in certain areas, we will need to downgrade and not, we hope, raise the status of those areas. Do you have a process in mind for that, or perhaps a process to change the boundaries where there are pockets of improvement or deterioration?

Vaccination continues to be a feature—

One question. One question, if you would.

Okay. Well, vaccination is clearly a characteristic of the strategy, but we still don’t know when that vaccine will be available, so that suggests that there will be a gap in the meantime. So, how do you intend to deal with that gap? I certainly welcome the suggestion that there will be an element of a badger cull, and I would urge anyone responding to this statement in the public consultation to make it quite clear that that is the right direction of travel, and I do hope that this Government will have the backbone to take action on that at the end of the day.

I haven't said at all that there will be a badger cull. I mean, please, I have not said that. What I have said is that I want to see bespoke action plans. I think it's really important that we look at pilots from other countries, but I think it's really important that when we have those bespoke action plans, which I think are very needed, particularly with the chronic heard breakdowns, because it is unacceptable that we have these, as I say, these 10 breakdowns that have been under restrictions for 106 years—. It's just not sustainable, and we have to find a way of dealing with that.

I welcome the fact that you are pleased that we're going to regionalisation. I, too, think that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and I think I've answered your questions in my previous answer to Paul Davies in relation to regionalisation.

In response to your question about vaccination, as I say, we don't know when there is going to be the supply of vaccine that we were having from Denmark. There have been discussions with DEFRA, and we've been working with DEFRA to try and find other suppliers. There doesn't seem too much appetite at the moment from DEFRA to look for it, so I've spoken to the chief veterinary officer, who, obviously, meets with her counterparts and also with DEFRA, to say that we will continue to look for that, because I do think that, whilst it is only one part of our programme, it's a very important part of our programme.

I will be brief, Cabinet Secretary. I thank you for your statement, but in my contribution to the recent individual Member's debate, I did urge you to stick with the science, and that is exactly going to be my call now. I believe that it is sticking with the science that was the basis, and the strength, of the current bovine TB eradication programme, and I will urge you to carry on in that way. I do welcome the fact that you’re going out to consultation, but I do ask you to ensure that it is framed and appraised in such a way that separates the evidence from the emotive, and the facts from opinions. We’ve heard those opinions being expressed here again today, and they’re not actually backed up by fact.

I actually prefer evidence-based approaches, which I think is the same as science. Of course we use science, but I think it’s really important that we do maintain that evidence-based approach. I think it’s really important we go out to consultation. I would urge Members to submit responses—anybody that’s affected by bovine TB. I’m expecting a significant number of responses to the consultation, and I’m very pleased that you welcome that.

Minister, I think key here is how we tackle TB in the wildlife reservoir, and I have to say, listening to you, I’m glad that you want to eradicate TB. That is your aim, and that is absolutely appropriate, given the consequences, post Brexit, where we could find that various countries will use this as an excuse not to take our beef.

But you’ve now said that you do not see a vaccine being available in the near future, and you don’t have a policy about what you’re going to do regarding badgers, which are the main vector in terms of the wildlife population. So, I do urge you to come up with a policy that does address what we do with the wildlife reservoir as soon as possible. I agree that we should rely on the science, and perhaps you could start with the British Veterinary Association, and their latest report on humane killing of diseased badgers. It should be controlled. It’s a horrible thing to talk about, but unfortunately, we probably need to do some of it.

I’ve read a great deal of different reports. I had a new report on my desk last week from somebody who’d undertaken a Nuffield scholarship. I’m constantly reading about it, and believe me, we do have a policy. I think I’ve outlined our policy. I’ve also mentioned about trade. It’s not just Wales that has bovine TB. I think it’s really important that we understand that. Of course, the reason for doing this, alongside many other measures, is to ensure that our reputation for absolutely the highest animal health and welfare standards remains a priority.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the statement and the substance in it. You’ve already heard, I think, from three members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and I think Members have determined we would like to do at least a short inquiry on this—likely to be on the full day, Thursday 10 November—and I would like to ask if you’d be available to attend that session, or if that date didn’t work, would come in to see us for perhaps an opportunity for a bit more sustained questioning one day either side of that. Obviously, we appreciate you won’t want to prejudge the consultation, but there does seem more substance for us to get into following your statement today.

I very strongly support your evidence-based approach and what you say on that. I wonder whether you feel the evidence is changing. You did mention the Northern Ireland study and the approach being taken there. Is there any reason to think that arguments for badger culls of one description or another—and I appreciate the English example is less good—that the argument for that has become stronger? I myself voted against the Gloucestershire and Somerset cull in another place, but that was on the understanding that a vaccine was going to be available in the nearer term. Do you think there’s been a change in the scientific evidence we need to react to?

Could I also just ask: you say that you rule out an English-style cull, with farmers themselves shooting affected and unaffected badgers; is your objection to the farmers themselves doing it, to the shooting or to the indiscriminate nature of affected as well as unaffected badgers? Is it all three, or is there a particular one of those that is of most concern to you? Thank you.

I’m very happy, as always, to be scrutinised by the Member’s committee, and certainly, if you write in requesting that date, I’ll be very happy to come if I’m available. If not, as you say, we’ll look for another date. I know you have asked the chief veterinary officer to give evidence already, but of course I would be very happy to come to be scrutinised.

Is the evidence changing? I suppose over the years, of course, evidence changes. The last time I looked at this in great detail was when I first came as a Member here, back in 2007. Nine years on, I probably think, yes, the evidence will have changed, maybe not hugely, but there will be pockets of evidence that will need to be looked at in great detail. What are my objections to the England cull? I think it’s the indiscriminate nature. It’s not for me to defend a policy that comes from DEFRA in relation to the badger cull, that’s a matter for Ministers there. I do monitor it. I do keep abreast of developments, but it’s not for me to defend them.

Certainly, when I’ve asked farmers—. And I have to say, most farmers in Wales would not want to see that type of cull. The ones that have, I’ve asked them how they would want to deal with it—would they want to deal with it themselves like happens in England—and I can’t think of anyone that said yes. They would want us to do it for them. So, I think even the farmers recognise that’s not the most appropriate way.

Can I welcome the balance in the statement and also the evidence in the consultation that I’ve read as well? It is based on good evidence and is a sound way forward. Can I commend the Cabinet Secretary for not avoiding the difficult questions? There are some tricky areas in this: issues around compensation and penalties; issues around increased testing and more accurate testing, which will lead to more incidents of finding animals that are infected and disposing of them; and rapid removal of reactors.

I particularly welcome the move towards consulting on regionalised areas, but perhaps I could ask the Cabinet Secretary, would it be the intention, then, as was done in Australia, that those wouldn’t be fixed for ever and a day as those areas, but actually, as individual farms or those on the periphery of those areas moved from high to intermediate, you could actually shrink those areas back, thereby delivering an incentive for those farmers in areas of high infection or intermediate areas to actually work their way out of it with an incentive? But, I do welcome this approach.

Perhaps I could ask as well, in addition to that question of a shrink in the areas and taking farms out of those regions, if this approach was to go forward, would she make available the chief veterinary officer to those Assembly Members, not only committee members of the environment committee, but others who have an interest in this, to discuss this approach in more detail? In looking at Northern Ireland and perhaps other areas where there are different approaches to tackling the wildlife reservoir, as it is called, of infection, will she also make sure that she does discuss this approach with leading scientists and ecologists, as well as epidemiologists, to make sure that we do not inadvertently end up with negative, perverse consequences of taking an approach that could indeed actually spread the infection in the wildlife reservoir? The best intentions can sometimes lead us into very bad actions on the ground. So, let’s do it on the evidence, as everybody here today has said.

I thank the Member for his very positive comments. Absolutely, it’s really important, if we have that evidence-based approach, that we listen to, as you say, not just ecologists, not just scientists, but absolutely everybody who has those good ideas. As my colleague, Ken Skates, said before, I’m not the keeper of the only good ideas. No one person can eradicate TB on their own. It’s absolutely vital we all work together.

In response to your question regarding the chief veterinary officer, yes, absolutely, I will make Professor Glossop available to any Assembly Member who wants to meet with her. I know she met with opposition spokespeople today. I should have probably said that, actually, Presiding Officer—yes, if anybody wants a briefing from the CVO, she would be very happy to do that.

I probably should clarify for you: we’re not consulting on the regionalisation. That will happen. That’s part of the refresh going forward. I mentioned that I think—if the measures that we are consulting upon, along with the other measures that are in the statement—for instance, I think north-west Wales could become TB free in the criteria that is there, and what a positive message that would send out. As I say, we’re completely able to do that within EU legislation. I just think it would be great if we could get that done in the first place and look at the intermediate, move those down, and the high as well, because we do want to see a TB-free Wales.

Finally, Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

I thank the Minister for her statement and particularly thank her for understanding the possibilities that we have of cleaning up the north-west and north Clwyd as a significant step forward. Would she agree that it’s important that this ambition should lead the regional board in that area, with all the scientific support that is necessary? One further question: at the end of the process, after the consultation and once international scientific evidence has been gathered, would it be a good idea for her to arrange a debate in this Assembly before we proceed any further, so that we can establish that there is unanimity in the kind of moves that she is trying to lead in this area, with the whole emphasis being on balance between the various methods?

I thank Dafydd Elis-Thomas for, again, his positive comments and questions. Yes, I’m very happy to look at the border. As I said, we need to look at the governance, if we’re changing the regions from what we have now—for a variety of reasons, I think, we need to do that.

I think, on the issue you raised about the evidence and the science that we get in, along with the responses to the consultation, I think it’s really important, as much as possible, we make that available. As I said, the chief veterinary officer is there to advise and help Members. TB is a very complex disease, and I think everyone in the Chamber shares the ambition to see a TB-free Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.