Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is spot on. There are 1 billion people hungry in today’s world and we are heading for a further increase in population of 2 billion. We should be aware that there is no unlimited cheap, safe food beyond our shores—it was the position of the last Government that there was—so we as a Government absolutely want to see domestic food production increase. We already have a huge task: 30% of the food eaten in this country is imported, but could be produced here.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the allocation of direct payments through pillar 1 of the CAP on common land.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

We published our assessment of the financial impact of changes to pillar 1 in chapter 7 of our response to the CAP reform consultation. We have held discussions with stakeholders about the future allocation of direct payments in respect of common land. The approach for the new CAP schemes, which begin in 2015, will take account of fairness, the need to minimise administrative burdens and the need to comply with the relevant European legislation.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will have gazed out on many occasions towards Cleeve common in my constituency. People are concerned that if there is a future prevention of claims for dual use, the funding will not be available to manage the common for purposes of wildlife conservation and indeed businesses. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he comes to take decisions on these matters?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are aware of the problem of dual use, but it is absolutely our intention that those who have common land should be eligible for new environmental land management schemes, which we shall publish shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman knows that I respect the protocols of devolution. We have regular discussions at ministerial and official level on matters agricultural. He is absolutely right, however, to raise the contrast between what has happened in Northern Ireland, where diseased badgers have not been removed, and the dramatic reduction in southern Ireland.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the development of vaccines for badgers and, indeed, cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

I raised the issue with Commissioner Borg on my first day back, a week last Monday. We are pressing on with the development of a cattle vaccine but, sadly, it will take some years: we have to develop a vaccine that is valid and works; we have to develop a DIVA test to differentiate between vaccinated cattle and diseased cattle; and we then have to get a legal process. I am afraid that that is going to take at least 10 years.

Flooding

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I will come on to the question of floodplains in a few moments, but the matter is on my radar. My colleague the Planning Minister will of course look at it with a completely open mind when the time comes.

Rightly, attention is now turning to how councils plan to develop and where they plan to build. Councils should take advice, where appropriate, from the Environment Agency and weigh up the different material considerations, from biodiversity to the need for more homes. Having said that, 99% of proposed new residential units that the EA objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with EA advice, where the decisions are known. I would say this, however: there is no monopoly on knowledge. Local elected councillors should decide and be held to account for their decisions.

Nevertheless, the estimated number of dwellings built in areas of high flood risk in England is now at its lowest rate since modern records began. That figure will change from year to year. It may rise and it may fall, but it will never be zero. A zero figure would mean a complete ban on any form of development in many existing towns and cities that happen to be flood-risk areas. Approximately 10% of England is high flood risk, such as large parts of Hull, Portsmouth and central London—indeed, this Chamber is in a high flood risk area. National planning policy clearly states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Councils should direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is unavoidable, it must be demonstrated that it is safe and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Councils have a robust power to reject unacceptable planning applications. Councils’ local plans should also shape where development should and should not take place. They should address the needs of associated infrastructure to accompany new building. National planning policy is clear that any new building that is needed in flood-risk areas should be appropriately flood-resistant and resilient. Mitigation measures such as land raising, landscaping, raised thresholds and rearranging the internal use of buildings can also make a development appropriate in such areas.

For example, London has long been at risk of tidal flooding, as evident from the North sea floods of 1953, which inflicted immense damage to the east end of London. However, since 1983 the Thames barrier has mitigated that risk. We did not have to ban all development in London; we overcame the challenge through science. We do not face a binary choice of economic growth versus flooding, town versus country or bailing out flood victims versus saving children in other parts of the world from being killed by contaminated drinking water. These are false comparisons and false choices. I want to be clear: we can and must do both. All that is required is political will, determination and innovation.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State talks about development being directed away from flood-risk areas unless it is absolutely necessary. However, the question is: why is it absolutely necessary to build in certain areas that are at great risk of flooding, including in my constituency, which he has been kind enough to observe?

[Mr Pickles]

I vividly remember the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2007. There is rarely a time when I pass Tewkesbury that I do not think of that. He makes a very reasonable point. Historic Tewkesbury remained relatively dry, while the new bit has experienced a degree of flooding. Things have to be managed. Ten per cent of the country is a large area; London is a large area. We need to ensure that a degree of caution is exercised, but ultimately we have to ensure that our citizens are safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to make a brief speech in this important debate. My constituency did not flood immediately but the waters got there in the end, and the continuing rain made for a difficult couple of weeks. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for coming in person to see the effects and meet a number of people who told him what we needed to do—and to avoid doing—in our area. I will outline one or two of those things in a moment.

I was pleased with the Government’s response to the flooding, so far as my constituency was concerned. I was also pleased that the Army was called in to help certain vulnerable people, and I commend the good work done by the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and a number of the local councillors, who responded very quickly to the flooding.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I spank my hon. Friend—[Laughter.] I mean, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am going red now. The Pitt review suggested that when the armed forces were used in these circumstances, they should be paid for at full cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look into reducing the cost of the armed forces at times of national emergency? At the moment, they often seem too expensive to be used.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to say that there is very little chance of his going red, as far as I know. He makes a good point, and he knows far more than I do about the financing of the Army.

The Government response in my area was certainly very good, and a number of the schemes that have been built there in the past few years have also been very successful. Nevertheless, three of the four roads that serve the town of Tewkesbury were closed, and the situation was becoming serious. Sadly, a number of houses were also flooded. I say “houses”, but I should rephrase that. They are people’s homes. Some homes in Sandhurst and Longford, which are villages just down the River Severn, were flooded for the third time in not very many years, and it was heartbreaking to visit them. The challenge, which I want to discuss with the Government, is how we can avoid such flooding in the future.

It has been acknowledged that the Government cannot control the weather, and we seem to have experienced rather different weather cycles over the past few years. Nobody will have forgotten the terrible floods of 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) came to visit Tewkesbury and saw some of the problems that we were facing. Even people on the other side of the world heard about those floods. I have spoken to people in Australia who remember seeing the famous picture of the flooded land surrounding Tewkesbury abbey. The abbey itself did not flood, and neither did an even older church just down the way at Deerhurst—it was built in about the 8th century—even though the village does flood.

The important point, which I am going to have to take up with the Secretary of State, although I raised it in an intervention and he did mention the building, is how vital it is not to continue to build in flood-risk areas. I hear what he says about 10% of the country being at flood risk. I have only a simple education, but I suggest that we do not build in the 10% and concentrate building in the 90%. Surely there is enough room to build the houses that we need.

I want to take up the issue of house building, because of a number of sites in my area that have been given planning permission. One of them is absolutely covered in water—it is at Longford, in an area that floods badly. Permission was granted, on appeal, by the previous Government, but I do not know why that happened. That was six years ago, but the houses have not yet been built. Planning permission has been given for a lot of houses in both Bishop’s Cleeve and Brockworth, but those, too, have not yet been built. I say to my right hon. Friend, and to the Government, that I do not accept that there is this need for housing which is being expressed; this need is being overestimated by the Government. I have raised the issue before and we need to look at the point carefully.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I recognise many of the issues that my hon. Friend from down the River Severn is raising. I do believe that houses need to be built, but does he agree that councillors should play a key role by making sure that they keep a record of flooded sites where some form of planning permission might have been given and, where necessary, use the planning system to protect them better, so that they are protecting the floodplain in the future?

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for that intervention. However, the councils in my area are saying that the Government are putting so much pressure on them to build a given number of houses that they have no choice but to build them in green-belt and flood-risk areas. I am sorry to have to say it to the Secretary of State but that is what my local councils are telling me. They are saying that they cannot accommodate the number of houses that they will be required to build without impinging on the green belt and without putting them in flood-risk areas. That is open for debate, but that is what my local councils are clearly saying to me. I really need him to examine the situation carefully and as a matter of urgency, because it is causing a very big problem. That issue was raised with the Prime Minister when he came to my constituency a week or so ago.

I wish to raise one or two other points about building in flood-risk areas. First, this issue comes down to what we define as a “flood-risk area”. I understand that the Environment Agency will assess an area as being at flood risk only if it is at risk from river flooding and not if it is at risk of surface water flooding. I would be happy to be corrected on that, but that is the situation as I understand it. Someone whose home is flooded does not really care what kind of water it is or where it has come from, because the situation is bad and they do not want it to happen. Perhaps the Government need to give different advice to the Environment Agency on how it classifies flood-risk areas.

[Dan Rogerson]

I just want to confirm that the flooding maps published by the Environment Agency before Christmas include surface flooding. Such an updating of the maps was one of the recommended changes, so that information is there. In addition, local authorities have key responsibilities in respect of groundwater and surface water flooding.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that and I will certainly take it up with the Environment Agency locally, but the map I saw just a couple of weeks ago was not coloured blue where there is surface water flooding. We need to take that up, but I will certainly take his words back to the local Environment Agency.

I am also concerned about what the Environment Agency has told me about the cost-benefit ratio of flood prevention schemes. I raised this in a written question and I was told, “As long as it is greater than a level ratio, that is okay. They can go ahead and carry out those schemes.” But that is not what the Environment Agency is saying to me when I raise these points with it. So, again, I have to take these points back to the Environment Agency to see what we can do to have even more schemes put into place.

I hear what has been said about dredging and desilting. They are not the entire answer to the problem, but in some areas, especially where there are pinch points, we must carry out that work. Although dredging and desilting are carried out in certain parts of the country, they used to be carried out an awful lot more. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now weighed in on this and agreed that they should take place in certain areas, and that is what we are pressing the Environment Agency to do.

I welcome a number of the initiatives that have recently been taken to help compensate people who have been flooded and to provide for the repairs and replacements that they need. Will there be any help for people to provide their own flood defences so that they do not get flooded in the first place? People who are better off may be able to afford to do that, but those who are less well off cannot. It would be better if we could help people to prevent the flooding in the first place, as well as trying to help those who have been flooded.

On the issue of insurance, I am pleased that a lot of progress has been made on the Flood Re scheme, but what about the excess payments? An insurance company might provide the insurance, but if it puts an excess of £30,000 or £40,000, which I have come across, on a property it is effectively not covered, because an owner would have to pay so much to put it right that they would not be getting any insurance money back. I do not know whether the excesses will be covered in the Flood Re scheme.

[Mr Pickles]

indicated assent.

[Mr Robertson]

My right hon. Friend is nodding. I look forward to receiving more details on that. That is good news if that is to be the case.

Finally, I ask the Secretary of State to revisit the issue of housing numbers and to prevent houses being built in the wrong places, where they are likely to flood or cause other houses to flood.

Badger Vaccines

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

It is generally accepted that, after the initial conclusions of the randomised badger culling trials, there was a significant reduction of some 16% in the cull area in the following years. On perturbation, which other hon. Members have also raised, there was an increase in TB in a ring immediately around the trial areas as a result of perturbation, but the incidence then dropped. Overall, there was a reduction. I point the hon. Lady to evidence in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has had a cull policy since 2000 with a reduction of around 45% in the incidence of the disease, and the number of cattle having to be slaughtered has halved.

There is no magic bullet and no single policy that can change the situation dramatically. Vaccination of badgers and cattle has a role; wildlife control has a role; dealing with the reservoir of TB in wildlife has a role; and routine testing, movement controls and better biosecurity all have a role. But none of them alone is the entire solution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Part of the trial is taking place in my constituency. My first ministerial meeting when I was elected 16 years ago was with Jeff Rooker on this very subject, and only now is any meaningful action taking place. The Minister is absolutely right to say that a whole range of measures is needed to counter the disease, but it has been increasing and farmers have been suffering. We must get a grip on it.

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have painted a picture of how bleak the matter is. The disease is spreading and we cannot ignore it any more; we must take action.

Returning to vaccination, which is the subject of the debate, I think it is worth noting that successive Governments have invested more than £43 million on vaccine research and development since 1994. The coalition Government will have spent at least a further £15 million. I say “at least” because the figure excludes what is likely to be sizeable expenditure on the necessary work on cattle vaccine field trials.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

As part of the cull is taking place in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State for being the first in over a generation to tackle this issue. Does he share my concern at the statement made by the police and crime commissioner for Gloucestershire yesterday opposing the extension of the trial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what should happen, not a publicity-seeking PCC?

[Mr Paterson]

Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady fails to understand the terms that she obviously fed to her Back Benchers to ask me about. Food security is a well understood concept. We are talking about feeding the world. We are not talking about food prices in the UK, but food prices in the UK are a very serious issue and not, I think, a matter on which to try to score political points. I am grateful to the various charities which help those who find themselves in difficulties. It is important that we support that in every way we can. I notice that the hon. Lady, with some fanfare, issued a policy review last night, “Feeding the Nation”, which supports virtually all our policies. I give her just one word of advice. If you are going to mention one of our great British cheeses, get the name right: it is single Gloucester, not single Gloucestershire.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

6. What recent progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 June political agreement was reached on the CAP reform regulations. Overall the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we substantially improved the Commission’s original proposals and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. By agreeing to the regulations now, we are able to provide certainty to farmers and paying agencies.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on his work at the council. Will he enlighten the House on what those regressive measures were, because my farmers remain very concerned that they will be worse off as a result of some of the changes compared with their continental competitors?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to enlighten the House. It was extraordinary that at a very late stage in negotiations the European Parliament made moves to penalise the most efficient dairy processors and reward the least efficient. There were extraordinary moves as late as last Monday night to introduce coupled payments for tobacco, pigs, poultry and cotton. I think the UK played a part, working closely with our allies, and we saw off a number of other regressive measures, such as double funding. I hope that when the detail is worked out with the representatives of the farming unions, they will see that we stood by British farming and stopped a lot of really bad things coming through this reform.

Flood Insurance

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important subject. Does he agree that another factor to consider is the level of excesses that insurance companies charge? If they set the excess at £20,000, the family affected are, in effect, not insured.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention and I think that he is on point. We need a comprehensive deal covering all aspects of the insurance premium.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Unlike the last Government, we have set up a groceries adjudicator, which answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On the second one, he will be pleased to hear that at Saturday’s meeting we agreed that retailers would carry out this testing, which will have meaningful results by the end of the week. Further to that, however, I want these results published on a regular basis—every three months.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I express my entire confidence in how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with this issue? Does it not raise a further point, however, which is that British farmers are handicapped when trying to compete with food producers from countries that not only do not carry out the appropriate checks, but have much lower animal welfare standards than we do?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right. It is a scandal that, despite our egg producers last year conforming to the enriched cages directive, and despite the fact that again this year we were 100% up because we were the first out of the traps to end tethering, some major European countries have still not conformed. I raised that point with Commissioner Borg at our last Council meeting and wrote to him about it last week.

Flooding

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We want a solution to this conundrum, which is why we have been meeting the ABI regularly and why we are determined to get a good solution. There is no point in rushing into a scheme that will not work. Getting a balance is a difficult conundrum and we are determined to get it right.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He is well aware of the effects flooding has on my constituency. Is it not time to develop a national strategy to ensure that the culverts, ditches, drains and waterways are regularly maintained and cleared? Is it not also very important to stop building houses in flood risk areas? Will he assure me that no inspector appointed by this Government will force councils such as Tewkesbury to build houses where it is inappropriate to do so?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—making sure all those channels are kept clear is part of the management of them. In recent days, we have seen complete and total saturation of the land and no matter how clear some of the channels have been kept, there has been nowhere for the water to go. He is quite right to mention the channels—several Members have raised that point with me—and I will talk to the Environment Agency about it.

Badger Cull

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In order to do so, I go back to what I said just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, which is that Lord Krebs himself is saying that people are cherry-picking certain aspects to try to get the result they want. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the full set of recommendations from the document instead of those that he cherry-picked, he would see that in fact the vast majority of the evidence is that culling does not make a significant contribution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not give way; I want to follow what Mr Speaker said and make some progress.

The case against culling on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness is overwhelming. That approach is also potentially entirely counter-productive. The independent scientific group initially found a decrease in the disease of approximately 23% in the centre of the culled area but an increase of approximately 29% on neighbouring land outside the culled area. Those results can be explained partly by what has been termed the perturbation effect. That has been studied by Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who has also found that repeated badger culling in the same area is associated with increasing prevalence of the BTB infection in badgers.

The objective of the Government and the NFU is healthy cattle and healthy badgers. I agree with that, but how does culling improve badger health? Professor Woodroffe states unequivocally that it does exactly the opposite and that

“all the evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB”.

Yet the Government’s approach ignores that evidence. As with the ISG trials, conditions have been imposed to try to limit the effects of perturbation, such as identifying natural barriers to badger movement, but these have generally been less rigorous than those recommended, with farmers essentially being encouraged to develop a “not in my back yard” approach to cattle TB without any real thought for the long-term impact on rates of the disease elsewhere.

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State warned that the cost to the taxpayer of tackling bovine TB will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. I agree that that is a very alarming prospect. That is why it is crucial that on this, as well as on the scientific evidence, he listens to the experts who, let me remind him, have concluded:

“The financial costs of culling an idealized 150 km² area would exceed the savings achieved through reduced cattle TB, by factors of 2 to 3.5.”

DEFRA has tried to keep the costs down by allowing licensed farmers to do the culling in its planned pilots and allowing for the licences to permit shooting, but by cutting corners in that way it undermines the very effectiveness that it claims for a culling strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Let me make some further progress.

DEFRA cites the EU prohibition on the vaccination of cattle against TB as the reason why studies to date

“cannot provide a definite figure for vaccine efficacy when administered to cattle under field conditions in the UK”.

Vaccinated cows can test positive for TB when using the current tuberculin skin test and the gamma interferon blood test, making it impossible to differentiate an animal that has been vaccinated from one that has the disease. However, a complementary test called the DIVA—differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals— has been developed, which confirms whether a skin test positive result is caused by vaccination or by TB infection. That is what should be validated and certified by the end of the year, according to the DEFRA website. It has the potential to open the door to a change in EU regulation. This Government should go to Europe now—they should have done so years ago—and prepare the policy framework to allow us to use the DIVA test; yet there are precious few signs that DEFRA or, indeed, the Government are pressing aggressively for the legal framework in which a cattle vaccine could be widely deployed. I echo the sentiments of those many Members who earlier this week urged DEFRA to stop hiding behind the excuse of EU law and to step up its efforts to change it.

A 2008 DEFRA paper on options for vaccinating cattle against bovine TB was endorsed by the NFU and concludes that

“BCG based vaccines will need to be used in conjunction with a DIVA test and that such a programme of vaccination could be cost-effective.”

It identifies the most significant barriers to use as legal and resultant trade implications. That was three years ago and we really should have made more progress than we have to date.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has said, biosecurity is a very important issue. Vaccination needs to go hand in hand with excellent biosecurity. According to Professor John Bourne, former chairman of the ISG:

“Despite some improvements, the government is still going nowhere near far enough with biosecurity”.

He went on to say:

“It is not badgers that spread the disease throughout the country; it is cattle”.

The most recent European Commission inspection of England’s biosecurity in September 2011 uncovered a catalogue of failures, including missed targets in the rapid removal of cattle infected with TB and

“weaknesses in disinfection at farm, vehicle, market and slaughterhouse levels”.

A belated crackdown has resulted in a slight improvement, but we need to go much further.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Steve Jones, a farmer who is deeply concerned about biosecurity. He says:

“Water troughs are a reservoir for TB because they are rarely cleaned out. It’s not uncommon for trough water to be left stagnating through the winter, collecting dead birds, rodents and various bacteria, only to be drunk by cattle in the spring. Badgers also use these troughs but it’s unfair to isolate badgers when the culprit is the bacteria soup itself. Making troughs badger-proof is not rocket science, but more fundamental is the adoption of better hygiene standards by the agricultural industry.”

Recent DEFRA data indicate that improving biosecurity would cost famers an average of £4,000, compared with £27,000 to deal with the TB herd breakdown. That is why the motion has a very strong focus, alongside its other measures, on comprehensive national biosecurity policy.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is important to recognise the wider context in Gloucestershire. One of the trials was going to take place in my constituency and farmers are very disappointed that it cannot go ahead for the moment. One of the first ministerial meetings that I had in this House 15 years ago was with the then Agriculture Minister, Jeff Rooker, and nothing has happened since. Does the hon. Lady not understand the frustration of farmers, including those in Gloucestershire? Does she not accept that, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has said, the British Veterinary Association says that the disease is being spread by badgers and that a trial cull is necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

In some ways it is disappointing that we have got to this point without finding a proper solution to TB. Successive Governments prevaricated over policy, and we are left in a tragic situation, where cattle and badgers continue to suffer and where farmers continue to have their livelihoods threatened by this disease. No one should be under any illusions whatever about what a nasty disease TB is, for both cattle and badgers, or how devastating it is to farmers and farming communities.

I thought that governmental prevarication had ended in 2008, with the recognition that culling was not the solution and that vaccination would provide a much surer way forward in the long term. The coalition agreement originally provided some comfort that TB control would be based on science-led policy. The apparent willingness of Ministers to take a rather curious interpretation of the scientific evidence is far more worrying. The independent scientific group, the bovine TB eradication group and the majority of scientific opinion conclude that culling is not the way forward. Lord Krebs has described the Government’s policy as “mindless”, so it is even more curious that the Secretary of State maintains that his decisions wholly conform to the science. They might conform to someone’s science; they do not conform to the majority of scientific opinion.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to refer to the British Veterinary Association’s opinion as well?

[Mr Sanders]

There is scientific opinion on both sides; the nub of the debate is that the majority of scientific opinion is against the cull.

Although Ministers and the National Farmers Union are clear that what has been announced is a postponement and not a U-turn on policy, the delay gives us an opportunity to scrutinise the evidence properly and to hold a wider public debate. I hope that that is beginning today. It is important to highlight the fact that opponents of the cull are not opposed to bearing down on TB. The ultimate goal for us all is to have better animal welfare—both of cattle and badgers—so it is essential that we find the most effective policy that eradicates the disease. I want to discuss the three main issues that demonstrate why the cull of badgers is the wrong way to deal with the spread of bovine TB: the scientific evidence, value for money and, of course, the overwhelming public opinion that a cull is an inhumane and unnecessary option.