Item 6 on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on bovine TB, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to introduce the statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for their report on our TB eradication programme. I formally responded to the report this morning, and was particularly pleased to see the committee’s recommendations were in line with our proposals, which were consulted on late last year.

Building on progress made over the last nine years, many of you know the significant financial and social impact bovine TB has on farming families, their businesses and the rural economy. It is important we continue to tackle this disease to safeguard the future of the industry and to protect public and animal health. The consultation attracted almost 1,000 representations, and I want to thank all those who responded. Many agreed with the need to take a more regional approach and so, later this year, I will establish low, intermediate and high TB areas.

Over the last few years, real progress has been made. The number of new incidents has fallen by over 40 per cent since its peak in 2009 and is now the lowest it’s been in 12 years. Through increased testing, we are now finding infected cattle at an earlier stage and around 5 per cent of herds now have TB. The regional approach will build on what we have already achieved and accelerate progress towards a TB-free Wales.

Today, I have published the Wales TB eradication programme document and the first delivery plan, which provides the detail of evidence-based controls to be applied to each region. The low TB area in north Wales is where the disease has not become established. Here, becoming TB free is within our grasp in the short to medium term. TB-free status will boost trade opportunities and mean herds require less regular TB testing, reducing costs for farmers and Government. Our evidence shows cattle movements into the area are the main driver of disease that does occur and so, from 1 October this year, post-movement testing will be introduced. This will help protect the area by identifying infected animals at the earliest opportunity, before they go on to infect others. The evidence shows movement of cattle from neighbouring higher TB areas is one of the main drivers of disease in the intermediate areas. Post-movement testing will, therefore, be introduced to the intermediate areas late next year.

The priority for the high TB areas is to continue to reduce the number of TB breakdowns and the severity of each case. In the consultation, we asked for feedback on a proposal for herd testing to be carried out every six months instead of annually. Six-monthly testing has been beneficial in the intensive action area, where this more frequent testing finds 22 per cent of all breakdowns. It has also been successfully used in eradication programmes in other countries. However, I know from my discussions with farmers it can be inconvenient and practically difficult to gather cattle from pasture in the summer months. This is why I’ve decided six-monthly testing will only be required for those herds that have the highest risk of becoming infected. We’re gathering the evidence needed to identify these herds, and so for now, annual testing will remain for all Wales.

Farmers told us they want herd TB status information made available so they can make a judgement on the risk of the cattle they are buying. We know risk-based trading schemes have made a significant contribution to TB eradication in New Zealand and Australia. Providing herd-level information will be one of the most important parts of the programme going forward, complementing our regional policies. We have made a start by grant funding livestock markets to update their equipment to receive and display TB information. In the longer term, only a mandatory system will make sure cattle sellers provide TB information at the point of sale, and we will explore ways this can be introduced.

The Cattle Health Certification Standards TB voluntary health schemes, known as CHeCS, will also play a pivotal role by allowing herds to demonstrate they are a lower risk even if they are in a high TB area. This will help buyers minimise the risk of introducing the disease, and participating herds classified as the lowest risk will be exempt from some of our controls. I urge Members to help me encourage farmers to sign up to a scheme, and ask for TB information of the cattle they are buying no matter where they come from.

A key element of our approach to disease eradication is to deal with TB in long-standing and recurrent TB breakdowns. Some of these chronic TB breakdowns have been under TB restrictions for many years. Eliminating disease in these herds will significantly reduce the costs and implications to the taxpayer, herd owners and neighbouring herds.

We are putting in place tailored action plans for chronic breakdowns, with measures specifically aimed at clearing up infection. In some of these chronic breakdowns, badgers may be identified as part of the problem, and unless we accept these herds remaining persistently infected, we must find ways to break the cycle of infection between badgers and cattle. We are considering a range of options to do this, including where necessary cage trapping and humanely killing infected badgers. This is a new approach and is not a repeat of the reactive culling previously used in England. The trap, test and removal operations being planned will be restricted to those breakdowns where investigations indicate badger infection is a key driver of the disease persisting. We will also only remove test-positive badgers. In areas where it can be proved badgers are not contributing to the disease, we will continue with cattle-specific measures, including increased biosecurity.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Along with these new measures we also need to be prudent with our budgets, especially with the future loss of European funding. It is important we prevent slaughtered animals being overvalued, because it increases the cost to the taxpayer. I am concerned our average compensation payments are 60 per cent higher than in England, so I am reducing the compensation cap to £5,000 and reviewing our compensation system. I will look at those used in other countries to inform any changes.

I fully appreciate just how distressing and debilitating TB is for farmers. My message to them is: things are getting better, and through working together we can achieve our mutual aim of eradicating this disease.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon and for giving me an opportunity to meet with officials earlier on today? 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 just how devastating this particular disease is.

We, on this side of the Chamber, welcome today’s statement and the Wales TB eradication programme document and delivery plan, and I hope that in responding to my questions today, the Cabinet Secretary will give us more detail about her initial targets and time frames for delivering a TB-free Wales.

I’m particularly pleased to see this Cabinet Secretary starting to take the necessary steps to remove this disease from the wildlife population, as well as tackling the disease in cattle. I’ve always believed that a full, holistic approach is needed to eradicate this disease, and I’m pleased that the Welsh Government is now, at last, taking that approach, as a strong eradication programme relies on dealing with all sources of the disease. So, I’d like to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on her decision here today to start removing infected badgers.

Now, my first question to the Cabinet Secretary is regarding the decision to remove infected badgers from severely affected farms. Can I therefore ask her what monitoring arrangements are in place for this policy? Perhaps she could provide some more specific detail on the practicalities of these new measures, for example the likely frequency of cage-trapping badgers on severely affected farms and how much funding will be provided to implement these new measures. Indeed, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will tell us how she will be reporting on the effectiveness of these measures so that we can absolutely be sure that the intervention is targeted appropriately.

Now, today’s statement confirms a regionalised approach, and it’s crucial that the measures are appropriate to the level of risk in each area and that they do not inadvertently result in more burden and red tape for farmers. Therefore, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will give a cast-iron commitment that that will not be the case. However, there are some very valid concerns regarding the impact of a regionalised approach on trade—and, in particular, trade between Wales and England, which could be negatively affected as a result of these changes. So, it’s crucial that the Welsh Government monitors any knock-on effects that the new approach might have on markets. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could also give an indication of how this new approach would impact on livestock markets across Wales.

Now, today’s statement also refers to the introduction of TB status information being made more readily available, similar to the risk-based trading system in New Zealand. Whilst I support the idea of a system that informs farmers of the status of cattle they are buying, could the Cabinet Secretary confirm exactly how the system will ensure that there’s no discrimination against farmers whose cattle have had the disease but are now off restrictions? Indeed, does the Cabinet Secretary recognise the concern of farmers in high TB areas about the potentially negative impact on their trade, and also, how can the Welsh Government properly police this system so that farmers can’t claim that their herd has been free of disease when it has not?

Now, today’s statement also refers to post-movement testing in low and intermediate TB areas, and it’s crucial that any new testing measures are put in place as conveniently as possible in order to minimise disruption to farmers in those areas. I understand that this will not be popular amongst farmers in those areas who feel that it could be costly to the industry. So, could the Cabinet Secretary therefore tell us what assessment she’s made of the financial impact that any additional testing may have?

In the Welsh Government’s consultation, there were proposals for lifelong restriction for inconclusive reactors in high TB areas, like Pembrokeshire, in my own constituency, and elsewhere, and there has justifiably been a number of concerns on this particular issue. The general concept of any lifelong restriction has worried farmers, who believe that restricting inconclusive reactors not only undermines the current skin test but it also could potentially infect the herd if left on a holding. Therefore, given that the statement makes no reference to inconclusive reactors, could the Cabinet Secretary provide some much-needed clarity on this matter and confirm that these lifelong restrictions are no longer being considered?

Farmers have also been concerned about six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas, and it’s good to see that the Welsh Government is now looking at more proportionate testing in these areas. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has re-looked at this specific proposal, although I would still be interested in any research that has been undertaken regarding the impact that six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas would have on trading with farmers outside of Wales and health and safety. Therefore, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could provide more detail on the impact of six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas.

Now, the statement also confirms a compensation cap from £15,000 to £5,000, which will have a significant impact on some farmers in Wales. So, will the Cabinet Secretary confirm how the Welsh Government will account for any additional pressure placed on farmers as well as how the Government will actually recognise pedigree stock?

Llywydd, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary, once again, for her statement this afternoon; and can I, once again, put on record my broad support for the Welsh Government’s proposals? Members are all aware of the importance of eradicating bovine TV. The agricultural industry has made it quite clear that unless urgent and proactive action is taken to manage the source of infection in both cattle and in wildlife, post-Brexit trade negotiations could be put at significant risk. Therefore, I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has brought forward proposals to tackle this disease holistically, including tackling the transmission routes between cattle and wildlife, and we look forward to constructively scrutinising these proposals as they develop.

I thank Paul Davies for his broad welcome for the refreshed TB eradication programme. You started off by talking about targets, and you’ll be aware that I responded this morning to the recommendations made by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I think it was recommendations 1 and 2 that were around targets, and I was very happy to accept those recommendations. I will bring forward some targets, and also interim targets, by the end of this calendar year.

Regarding monitoring, that will be constant. The idea of having the first delivery plan was to have the overarching strategic document in the eradication programme, but then underneath that, have the delivery plan, which can be flexible. So, if we need to respond to a changing pattern, for instance, we would be able to do that quickly. I want that delivery plan not to be a Welsh Government document. I want that to be very much in conjunction with the sector, with farmers and with the veterinary profession. You’ll be aware of the bespoke plans that we’re going to have with the chronic herd breakdowns. We’ve got 10 per cent of our herd breakdowns that are the chronic herd breakdowns, i.e. over 18 months—some of them since 2001. It’s completely unacceptable, and I said this in my statement last October, before we went to consultation, that we really needed to look at these chronic herd breakdowns specifically. I absolutely agree: transparency is imperative, and again, we will be doing annual monitoring, and I will be very happy to report back on that.

In regard to the regionalisation approach, again, the consultation—some people were in favour, some people weren’t, but I think it’s really important that we have it, and as I said in my statement, I think TB-free in north-west Wales, in that low area, is within our grasp, and that would really send a very positive message out. I don’t want to burden farmers any more than they are. I don’t want more regulation. However, we do want a TB-free Wales, so we have to have this holistic and new approach to the disease.

You asked about trade between Wales and England and officials have certainly spoken to DEFRA and had discussions around that. I’m very happy with the arrangements that we’ve currently got in place. You referred to the informed purchasing status. I think that’s really important. So, we’ve had a voluntary sort of scheme, if you like, and we’ve given grant funding to livestock markets. Not all livestock markets have taken up the grant funding. I would say that not all livestock markets are producing the information that I think buyers need. So, I do think the only way forward, really, is a mandatory scheme, so I’ve asked officials to look at how we could introduce that.

I mentioned in my statement that checks are really important and I think particularly for farms. You know, I was asked the question about: if you’re in a high TB area but you haven’t had TB breakdown, how do you then inform people that you haven’t had it? So, I think checks are a way forward to do that, and as I said, I would encourage everybody to encourage farmers to do that.

You asked about post-movement testing in the low and intermediate TB areas and I said that this year, on 1 October, we’ll introduce that in the low TB area. I just think we need to identify disease at an earlier stage. We don’t want the disease introduced into the low TB area. I think we must do all we can to protect that. And because we know the majority of the way that it’s spread from high TB areas into intermediate TB areas, I plan to introduce it next year there.

I absolutely agree with you about six-month testing, and we looked at the consultation responses. My advice from the chief veterinary officer’s office was to continue with annual testing, but, again, we will obviously monitor that.

In relation to the compensation cap, it was £15,000 and it’s now going to be £5,000. Looking at last year’s figures, that would affect about 1 per cent of farmers. However, there is an issue around pedigree cattle, and I would encourage people who feel they’ve got cattle more valuable to look at insurance.

You ask about inconclusive reactors and, again, we’ve said that, in those chronic herd breakdowns, we will be removing them immediately, but just, again, as part of the bespoke plans, and life long has been ruled out.

Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd, am I’m very pleased to see you chairing this particular statement. May I start by telling the Cabinet Secretary that we’re very pleased that she concluded her statement with the recognition of the detrimental impact that this disease has on farmers and the industry more generally? I very much hope that the Government will continue to acknowledge and recognise that, because this disease does cast a very long and dark shadow over large areas of Wales, including many of those areas that I represent as a regional Member for Mid and West Wales.

Although many people will question aspects of today’s statement, Plaid Cymru certainly wants to work with much of what’s contained here in order to see that there’s an approach to eradication of this disease that takes fully into account real animal welfare issues, and that is the herds as well as the badgers. This disease exists in those animals that we are involved in their husbandry, and is also in the wildlife reservoir, and we need to eradicate it from both of those sectors. And in that context, I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary has had to say this afternoon.

I just have a few questions, because I think that most have already been asked and answered, but there are a few aspects that I would like a little more detail on. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that there is a strong recommendation from the committee that she responded to this morning in terms of securing from the Westminster Government that the TB status of Wales isn’t going to be any sort of barrier in trade negotiations with the rest of the European Union as we leave the union. The Cabinet Secretary has stated positively that she will do that, but, of course, with a new Government in place, I just wanted to ensure that that is done as a matter of urgency, and that these issues are raised with the Government negotiating trade on our behalf.

I’d like to hear a little more about how the Cabinet Secretary intends to report back to us as an Assembly or to the committee responsible for this, namely the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, particularly in relation to those new aspects in this report, and that is tackling the issue of badgers on specific farms where there are breakdowns that have been in existence over a long period of time, 18 months and more, and the Cabinet Secretary made reference to that in the statement. She’s pledged already, in response to the committee, to return in a year’s time, but I would like to see that becoming some sort of consistent report-back system, every six months or every year, so that we can monitor what is being done.

And just in the context of tackling the badger population where there is a link between the existence of badgers on a farm and the recurrent transmission of that disease, who’s going to establish that link? We can get people such as ecologists to go to farms and we can actually find where the badger population is in relation to the pasture and so on, but who’s going to actually make that decision that there is that link? And then, of course, there are some of the outcomes that would emerge from that, including the culling of badgers, where appropriate.

Can I just ask on risk-based trading? I think there was an element of sadness for the Cabinet Secretary that more of the industry hasn’t grasped this opportunity to make more information known in markets and so on and so forth, and although she doesn’t intend to make that compulsory at present, what steps will she take during the next year or two to put her risk-based trading system on firmer foundations in Wales, so that we can monitor whether that is making a difference in ensuring the eradication of the disease regionally, at least, in parts of Wales?

And can I ask whether she intends to retain the cap? We have discussed the cap, and the impact on breeding particularly, but does she intend to keep the cap under review in case there are unexpected consequences emerging from that?

The final question I have—. I genuinely welcome the fact that, in responding to the consultation, it appears to me that the Cabinet Secretary has shifted from a system, for example, that is six months for everyone in the intensive action area to a system that is more based on risk. But, in light of that, of course, you will have to be more certain of the risk level—you’ll need to be aware which farms and which herds are truly at risk and which are in a different situation. That does raise a question on resourcing and staffing, and how that’s going to be achieved, and I would like to hear a little more from the Cabinet Secretary as to how she can ensure that the risk standards are contained within the new plan.

Diolch, Simon Thomas, for, again, his broad welcome for the new eradication programme and for his questions. I absolutely agree with you about the detrimental impact. Some of the most distressing conversations I’ve had with farmers since I’ve been in post over the last year have been around TB, so I absolutely agree with you on that point.

In relation to the new approach within the chronic herd breakdowns with badgers, I think it would be good for the badger population, as well. So, I’ve been asked the question—this comes back to your last point—‘Why aren’t you doing that everywhere?’ We don’t have the resources and the funding to do it, but we will then be able to have some information, working with farmers and their private vet, to get their bespoke action plan together—that’s how we will know whether there is that link between wildlife and cattle coming into contact.

Around the question of our TB status and trade with the UK Government, I actually think that we’ve had some success. Since we’ve had our eradication programme back in 2008, we’ve seen a 40 per cent drop in incidence. So, I don’t think Europe, any other country that wants to trade with us or any other part of the UK would see that as a failure, but it is something—. Within our ministerial meetings at an agricultural level, we’re having a look specifically at trade, which—

When you get one.

Yes, I am hoping that will soon be—. I’m going to have a conversation with Michael Gove in the morning, and I’m hoping we’ll be able to reinstate our monthly meetings as quickly as possible.

You ask about how I will report to this place, whether it’s in the Chamber or with the committee. I certainly think I need to report annually, so we can look at whether that’s here or to the committee. One of the reasons I didn’t particularly want an annual delivery plan was that I just think that the plan needs to be flexible and fluid, but I do think that I need to report annually to Members, so that they can be aware of how successful the new approach is.

In relation to the compensation cap, as I said in my answer to Paul Davies, it was £15,000 and it’s come down to £5,000 now. It would’ve affected 1 per cent of people—of farmers—last year. However, it would save £300,000, and I am concerned that our compensation rate is 60 per cent higher than England. We have to be pragmatic about this. We are going to lose EU funding, which is currently about £4 million, in a couple of years. I’m going to hold the UK Government to what they said, but we have to plan that we won’t get that funding. I spent £11 million last year on compensation, so we have to look at it. But, again, I’m very happy, you know, the whole eradication programme needs monitoring, and I’m very happy to include that in the report to Members.

Well, Simon Thomas lamented at the start of his remarks that there weren’t many questions left to be asked and now there are even fewer, but I would like to join everyone else in welcoming this statement and actually congratulating the Cabinet Secretary on her willingness to engage with farmers and to listen to all views, and for the flexibility of her approach. I do think that this document, taken in the round, is a significant step towards the eradication of TB.

There will, no doubt, be lots of complaints about individual parts of the package, but I think that, as a whole, it does represent very significant progress indeed, in particular the difficult political decision—I acknowledge that right at the outset—to envisage culling of badgers, be it of a limited kind. There is no unanimity on the value of this even within my own group, so I do understand the difficulties that the Cabinet Secretary has to cope with on this particular aspect of it.

As regards regionalisation, I think this is a sensible approach and it will be particularly welcomed, of course, in north-west Wales. And there are, of course, fears in the farming community—in the high-risk areas in particular—that this is going to stain them, in a sense, and increase their costs and adversely affect prices. I think we must do as much as we possibly can to explain to the public at large, and others who are interested stakeholders in this, that this is not necessarily something that makes the meat and other farm produce that is produced in these areas unsaleable or inedible. I think it’s very important to carry on with what the Cabinet Secretary has been doing, which is to take the farming industry with us in a collaborative venture towards the goal that we all want to see.

As regards the compensation cap, I heard what the Cabinet Secretary said about—. Actually, I think the figure is only 95 animals that were involved last year, over £5,000. But there is a specific unfairness to individuals, particularly where they’ve invested significant sums of money in animal genetics. I’m pleased to hear that she’ll keep this under review, and if it proves to be the case that individuals are losing significant sums of money, given the precariousness of farming incomes, I think it would be very welcome if this could be revisited as soon as there’s enough information available.

As regards the role of wildlife, I notice that the document does say that TB can infect all animals and some are regarded by veterinary experts as reservoirs, which can lead to a persistence of the disease. Of course, this particularly involves badgers. We know from the most recent Wales ‘badger found dead’ survey that there was an infection rate of nearly 7 per cent, which is much higher than that found in cattle, and in some areas of Wales about one in five badgers tested in this survey were shown to be suffering from the disease. I think it’s very important that we should see this as an animal welfare issue for badgers and other wildlife, as well as for cattle, and it needs to be explained that TB is a horrible disease for badgers as well as for cattle and there are other issues involved with an explosion in the numbers of badgers as well. We accept that deer need to be culled. There isn’t a great deal of controversy about that. Given that badgers have no known predators and there’s been a collapse in the hedgehog population and significant problems with ground nesting birds, there are other reasons for the control of badgers as well. These are issues that, I think, which have to be faced up to if we are to have real biodiversity in the countryside. I know that’s not directly relevant to this particular statement but it is an important part, I think, of the argument to try and bring the public with us on what is, I know, a very difficult issue.

So, I’ll just repeat what I said earlier on, that I do think that this is a step change for the Welsh Government in dealing with this problem and I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for grasping this nettle.

Thank you, Neil Hamilton, again for your welcome for the refreshed TB eradication programme and for your questions. Actually, you said about Simon Thomas, I didn’t refer to the question around the informed purchasing scheme that Simon asked about, and you said that you thought I answered Paul Davies with sadness. We did bring this grant funding forward in the hope that all livestock markets would take it and then use it in the way that we would want. And as I said before—I think it was to Paul Davies—I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere; I think we are going to have to have a mandatory scheme. So, I have asked officials to look into how that could be introduced, probably through legislation. So, we’ll have to work that up.

I think it’s really important to work collaboratively and it’s something I’ve always done. I mentioned in relation to the delivery plan, it’s not a Welsh Government delivery plan, it’s owned by ourselves along with farmers and also the veterinary profession. I think that is the only way we’re ever going to get a TB-free Wales, which we all want to see. You’ll be aware that, when I made my statement in October, I talked about Northern Ireland and what they were doing around trapping badgers and testing them. If they were positive, they were humanely killed and if they were negative, they were vaccinated. We don’t have the vaccination available to us at the moment. It’s something that I’m hoping will come back next year, maybe late next year, and then holistically I would use it as part of the programme.

In relation to the compensation cap, you reiterated what I said, and I do appreciate that some people have invested significant sums of money in pedigree cattle. But, as I say, we will continue to monitor it, but they need to look at ensuring that.

You’re right about animal health and welfare, and I said in my answer to Simon Thomas that I think this way will be good for the badger population as well. So, whilst I absolutely rule out an England-style cull, because I don’t think it works, and the science and the evidence show that, I do think we have to break those chronic herd breakdowns. We cannot have herd breakdowns for 16, 17 years; it’s just completely unacceptable to the farmers and to the taxpayer, so we have to have this new approach.

I thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and I do welcome some elements and I will be raising concerns about others.

The intensive action area—the IAA—does lie within the region that I’ve represented for 10 years now, so I know only too well what a blight bovine TB is, and the disease has been a chronic and malign affliction for many farmers for many, many years. I am encouraged, however, that the incidence of bTB in the IAA has declined by 35 per cent. That’s 12 per cent more than the comparable in nearby areas. That seems to suggest to me that the measures currently being taken are, indeed, having a very positive effect, and I welcome that you’ve decided to take a different approach to the shambolic policy pursued in parts of England. I do have reservations, however, and I hope that you will be able to reassure me on a number of points.

Members in this Chamber will be aware of my past position on this issue, and I’ve spoken from and voted in line with the scientific evidence. The only credible evidence that we have regarding badger culling and its impact on the spread of bovine TB is from the 10-year randomised badger culling trials conducted by Lord Krebs. It concluded that in order to have even a modest reduction in bTB, 70 per cent of the badger population in an area no smaller than 150 sq km must be eradicated, and that this must be done in a short period of time—that’s about six weeks every single year. But it also goes on to say that if too many badgers are killed, there is a high risk of local extinction and that, indeed, did happen in some areas of the Irish Republic. It also goes on to say that if you don’t kill enough badgers, you risk perturbation, and that spreads the disease even further and wider. So, my question has to be, Cabinet Secretary: how does the proposed action of trapping and terminating diseased badgers, and possibly microchipping them, stack up against those Krebs recommendations, and how is it actually going to make any difference whatsoever? You know my views on badger culling, and I will repeat them yet again; I will not support it.

I also want to raise other questions about the spread of bTB in relation to slurry on farms. I do understand that grazing on land where manure and slurry is spread is not recommended for two months, and that is because the infection can stay within the manure and slurry for up to six months. Can you clarify then whether it is compulsory for all manure and slurry to be stored for six months prior to spreading? And would you consider enforcing the two-month grazing moratorium that is currently recommended?

My final point that I want to ask is: what other assessments have you made about the potential spread to cattle of bTB from foxhounds? Twenty five foxhounds from the Kimblewick hunt tested positive for bTB earlier this year. I don’t know whether we’ve done anything in Wales in terms of testing foxhounds in Wales, but what I do know is that there are around 20 hunts in west Wales. Do you not think, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, that it might be actually prudent to suspend all hunting with hounds until at least the risks are properly assessed?

I thank Joyce Watson for her questions and I absolutely know her views on a badger cull just as much as she knows mine. You’ll be very aware this is just about those chronic herd breakdowns. These plans, these bespoke action plans, which will be drawn up—which, if it’s proven there is, or there’s evidence that there is, contact between badgers and cattle that could be contributing to the disease, we will then undertake this trapping. It could be that some farmers don’t want those badgers done, and the bespoke action plan will only be done in consultation with the farmer and with their private vet.

You mentioned about microchipping. I am aware that in other countries this has been done, where, if a badger has been trapped and tested and it’s negative, it’s microchipped, so that, if the disease then does go to that farm, for instance, and you go back, you catch the badger that’s microchipped, they’re aware of the previous history, if you like, of the badger.

You talked about perturbation. I have to say that much of the effect of perturbation on the disease is not known and I think there is some significant work that needs to be done around that. I think one area where we have benefitted is in the ‘badger found dead’ survey. It’s given us some really good evidence in relation to the areas across Wales, and I have said that that will continue, that survey, going forward.

You ask about slurry and you quote the regulations around slurry and could it be made compulsory, because, again, that is something that—you know, the farmers have to take action around that. They know the risks and how long it should be stored for, et cetera, to get rid of the high moisture levels, but it’s something that we can certainly look at going forward.

You ask about foxhounds. Now, I’m not aware of any testing of foxhounds that’s gone ahead but I’d be very happy to look at that and write to the Member and put a copy in the Library.

I think, on the latter point, you should follow the scientific evidence—I would commend that. I think it is slightly perverse for a Member to quote the need to follow scientific evidence and then throw into the debate something that has certainly not been examined by the committee, or the Welsh Government by the sound of it. But, as I said, evidence has to be taken seriously when it’s robust.

I welcome the target setting. I think that’s very important, that we set a national target and then we have the interim targets for the three regions. I do think it’s important that we emphasise that, in the two regions that unfortunately are not very close to TB-free status, every effort over the period of the target will be taken, and that we will not let up. Our determination is to have a Wales free of bovine TB. So, I think they need reassurance because I think some feel that if north Wales is designated TB-free then the whole issue gets lessened on an all-Wales basis. I know that’s not your intention, but it is something that is mentioned by the farmers unions for instance, so we need to keep that in mind.

I think that trapping, testing, and removing infected badgers in high-risk areas is appropriate. Surely, it would be an odd animal welfare decision to release those badgers back into the wild if they are found to be heavily diseased. So, I do think this is an appropriate approach. The committee did find here evidence, both in England but also around the world, that some removal in the wildlife reservoir is appropriate, and, again, we’re always open to the evidence.

I think the new strategy needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated. The committee looked at this in great detail and I welcome the fact that you’re going to make regular, possibly annual—you’re yet to decide that—statements, and I think it’s an appropriate thing for the Assembly to return to on that basis as well.

I will just say, about adequate compensation, I think one way that we can respond to this disaster, really—if you look at a map of TB spread in the 1960s and look at it now, it is a truly dismal advance the disease has taken over that time. But, one thing we could do, as we progress to disease-free status, is improve the quality of the stock, and here pedigree breeding is important. So, I would ask you to look at that one very carefully, because that was specifically raised with us in committee.

Thank you, David Melding, for those questions. You’re absolutely right. This has all been done on an evidence base—that’s how we should make our decisions. But I’m very happy to look at anything that anybody suggests to get that aim that we want, and that’s that TB-free Wales.

I hear what you say about the high-risk areas being concerned about, you know, if north-west Wales is designated a TB area—. I’m the other way. I think that will really give us a boost, and I think, as I say, it is within our grasp in the short to medium term, but probably more in the short term. So, I hope I’ve offered that reassurance.

Around the compensation, I hear what you’re saying about improving stock and pedigree stock, and I know that some people have invested heavily in it, but, equally, we have to look at why our compensation rates are so high compared with England. Sixty per cent I don’t think is acceptable. I don’t think it would be acceptable to the Welsh taxpayer, and, if I am looking at reducing funding—not me personally reducing funding, but if my budget would have a reduction in funding, if we do lose that money from the EU, we have to look at that issue very carefully.

I absolutely agree about animal health and welfare, and I do think, in those chronic breakdowns, if we can prove or the evidence is there to show that badgers are contributing to the disease in that herd, that we take the action that I think is appropriate and proportionate.

Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that this has been a real consultation, that she’s listened to farmers and to their representative groups and that the policy has firmed up as this has developed? Some months ago, I was sceptical of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee doing an inquiry on this; I feared that people would have entrenched positions and that there wouldn’t be much movement in response to quite a lot of evidence taken from witnesses. I found the absolute reverse, and it’s been the same with the Cabinet Secretary and what she’s done with this consultation.

We have had press releases from the NFU and the FUW. The NFU welcome the positive measures to address bovine TB in wildlife and say it’s a step forward to achieving a TB-free Wales. The FUW have, I think, re-released their press release, but, nonetheless, it has a statement in it that the programme continues to focus almost entirely on cattle controls without significant measures to tackle the disease in wildlife. Does she agree with me that that is not a fair assessment of the programme? Perhaps if you look at the volume of it and how much is written, I can see where they’re coming from. But, on the delivery paper you’ve put out today, it says that

‘where the Welsh Government views that badgers are contributing to the persistence of disease in chronic herd breakdowns, badgers will be trapped and tested on the breakdown farm and test positive badgers will be humanely killed. ‘

That is a real development, that it does address TB in the wildlife population, and is not an easy step for her to take and won’t meet with universal approval within her party—but that she, like the committee, have looked at the evidence. I had a certain frustration with the way that some witnesses and others described the Krebs report and the randomised badger control trials almost as if they’re tablets being handed down from on high, and, yes, an awful lot of money was spent on those trials, but there are actually some serious problems about how they were conducted, and they were stopped—when it seemed that there was a perturbation, in fact, they stopped actually measuring it, and there have been other trials and other evidence that has shown that that perturbation effect dies down. I think, as the committee looked at this more, we found that Christianne Glossop, your excellent chief vet, was sceptical of the degree of emphasis put on the perturbation out of the RBCT. In particular, three members of the committee that I then chaired, we went to the Republic of Ireland and found that, actually, for their approach, their assessment had been that perturbation was significantly less of a problem than the RBCT had said.

So, will she confirm that we’ll continue to find and develop evidence? And, actually, science is about looking at, and testing, and doing new things and assessing how you’re doing that. A key part of the strategy is going to be in seeing, when badgers are removed in this way, what impact that has, checking that the perturbation effect isn’t too great, and taking things forward in a decision by the Government that responds to evidence, responds to farmers, responds to the committee, and on which I’d like to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Mark Reckless, for your contribution. You’re absolutely right; it had to be a meaningful consultation. You may remember when I came to committee just before Christmas—we launched the consultation in October and I think it ran to the middle of January, and I was extremely concerned that, in the run-up to Christmas, we’d had something like 15 responses. I knew how important this issue was to farmers, so I think I put a plea out in Cabinet, and then, by the time we finished the consultation in January, we’d had over 1,000 responses. We’ve taken our time to look at those responses, because I thought that was very important, and I hope people will see I certainly didn’t have an entrenched position, and the fact that we’ve listened—I mentioned before about the consultation question around six-monthly herd testing, and we’re not doing it now because farmers have said, particularly during the summer months, it’s too difficult to bring cattle in from the pasture. So, I do hope people recognise that.

You mentioned the two main farming unions having little bits of a difference of opinion, but you can’t please all the people all the time. I was at the FUW AGM yesterday, I spoke at that, and certainly I think there is a broad welcome for this, but it is really important that we monitor it. Somebody mentioned before that I haven’t decided how often I was going to report back—well I have, it is going to be annually, it’s just whether I report back to the Chamber or back to the committee. You mentioned the committee report, and I’m sure you’re very pleased to see that all the recommendations have either been accepted or—I think two—accepted in principle, because I do think the committee report did align with our proposals.

Finally, and very quickly, Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have two very short and focused questions. Cabinet Secretary, you have confirmed that you will reduce the cap for compensation from £15,000 to £5,000. Now, there will be, of course, some farmers that have invested in high genetic valuables to improve the genetic value and productivity of their herd. How is the Government going to ensure that farmers in this particular situation receive a fair value? And, secondly, can you just confirm when the programme to cage-trap and humanely kill affected badgers will commence?

In response to the first question, I think I’ve answered that, but, if any farmer believes they’ve got cattle worth more than £5,000, I would suggest that they look at insurance. However, it’s something that we will continue to monitor, the new cap on the compensation.

The bespoke actions plans in relation to the chronic herd breakdowns, we have started to pull those together. So, we’ve got about 10 per cent of herds in chronic herd breakdown, so that’s between 50 and 60—certainly at the last quarterly figures I saw. I think we’ve already been out to about 40 farms, starting to draw those action plans together. I think we’ve got 10 action plans done. So, where, as I say, we have the evidence to show that there is the link between badgers, wildlife, and the disease, we will start that—as soon as the action plan has been drawn up with the farmer and with the farmer’s private vet, we will start those bespoke actions plans, and that will be part of the process.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.