Peter Black and South Wales West Liberal Democrats

Opposing Badger cull

The Farmers Union of Wales have written to me suggesting that this motion is the work of Vegetarians and Animal lovers as if that was an insult. Well I am a committed carnivore and don't find badgers particularly cuddly but what I do object to is a protected species being culled on the basis of inconclusive scientific evidence in a flawed pilot study.

Since we tabled this motion I I have been astounded not by the number of e-mails and letters I have received opposing this cull, but by the large number that have come from North Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion itself, most from landowners and some from people with livestock of their own or significant experience of managing cattle.

The claimed overwhelming support for this cull in the North Pembrokeshire area is clearly not as solid as it has been claimed with many residents concerned that the cull is taking place without clear scientific evidence to support it, that it threatens the integrity of the natural environment in which they live and that the legislation empowers government agents to enter onto their land and carry out the cull without their consent.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas, Lesley Griffiths and the Minister have argued that if this legislation is not approved then the cull will go ahead anyway. I find that hard to believe. The Minister would be opposing the will of this assembly, would not get 100% coverage, would most probably be in breach of animal welfare regulations and leave herself open to judicial review.

Many have pointed out that badger culling is not cost effective. The amount of cattle TB prevented by culling is miniscule compared to effective cattle controls. If you test and remove TB effectively from cattle then badger TB declines. That is a fact.

It is also the case that culling has been tried elsewhere and abandoned. Even the Republic of Ireland is considering abandoning its cull because, although a reduction in bTB rates in cattle has been evident, the rate of decline has been no better than in Northern Ireland where effective management of herds and control has also had an impact.

In England, on the basis of the same evidence available to our Minister, a decision has been taken not to have a cull. Why is it that two different Minister's can come to different conclusions when faced with the same facts?

It is a matter puzzling Dr. Robbie McDonald who is head of the Wildlife and Emerging Disease Programme at DEFRA's Food and Environmental Research Association. He is an advisor on the Welsh Government's TB eradication board and has stated publicly that culling badgers will make bTB worse and that farmers need to start backing the vaccination programme.

In fact new field trials in the Republic of Ireland to stop the spread of TB in cattle by vaccinating badgers rather than exterminating them is showing good results according to the Irish Times.

The big increase in bTB here came following restocking after the foot and mouth outbreak.

However, although there has been a significant increase in the numbers of infected cattle identified the incidence of bTB in cattle is not rising and does not reflect, and is therefore probably independent of, the situation in badgers.

A cull of badgers is very unlikely to yield long term benefits. If there is any impact upon bTB in cattle it is likely to be adverse due to the disturbance in the badger population that a cull will produce. It is possible that a small, widely ranging population of badgers, all infected with bTB will be the outcome.

The Minister makes a very good case with regards to the cost to the Welsh Government regarding bTB in cattle. However, what has happened in recent years is that the number of cattle tested has risen, from around 600,000 in 2002 to over 1.4 million in 2008. There is no more TB in cattle today than there was in 2002, just a gingered up system for detecting it.

The rise in overall costs is explained entirely by changes in husbandry/testing and has not been influenced at all by changes in prevalence of bTB. In the belief that the disease is out of control a decision has been taken to slaughter all inconclusive reactors immediately. In 2008 there were 230 inconclusive testers sent to slaughter, by half way through the current year over 800 had been sent to slaughter. Over this year there will be at least a five-fold increase on the previous year.

I do not know whether badgers infect cattle with bTB, nobody does. The data is insufficient and/or contradictory. There is no doubt that the baseline of infection in badgers is relatively high but given that the trend in cattle is downwards then those figures cannot support a hypothesis that badger to cattle transmission occurs to any significant degree. In other words the whole foundation of the case for the cull is undermined.

The last significant point I want to make is to do with the geography of the cull area. It is one that has been made already. But it is worth repeating that apart from the sea there are no hard boundaries here that will prevent perturbation and infection in adjoining areas.

The fact is that substantial reductions in cattle TB incidence could be achieved by improving cattle based control measures. Such measures include introducing more thorough controls on cattle movement through zoning or herd attestation, strategic use of testing in both routine and pre-movement testing, quarantine of purchased cattle, shorter testing intervals, careful attention to breakdowns in areas that are currently at low risk and whole herd slaughter for chronically affected herds.

In my view and that of many others the Minister needs to apply all of these measures before even considering culling a protected species. She must explore vaccination as an alternative. If it is considered to be cumbersome then surely so must be the trapping, shooting and incineration of badgers.

The proposed cull of badgers in North Pembrokeshire is inhumane, unnecessary and based on inconclusive and dubious evidence. The proposed trial is not only unscientific it will prove difficult to evaluate because of the other control measures being taken. It will be impossible to properly assess the impact of the cull as a stand-alone measure.

It is my view too that taking this action will bring this Assembly into disrepute. Once more we find policy being dictated by a significant lobby group in contradiction of the evidence. By tabling this motion today a few of us hope that reason might prevail and this cull is halted to give other measures longer to take effect.

I know that party whips have been at work but I would ask those Assembly Members who have a conscience in this matter to exercise their vote accordingly regardless.