Bovine TB and Badger Control

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I will obviously talk to senior scientists, but I am also keen to drive forward new technologies. We have already discussed the DIVA test, and there is real merit in considering polymerase chain reaction, which I saw being used in Michigan when I was there in 2005. We can also consider the possible use of gamma interferon, which we have seen in other countries. I am definitely open to new ideas, because we have to bear down on this disgusting disease.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Three times today the Minister has said that we are not yet there with a vaccine, so will he now focus on fast-tracking a vaccine programme and the DIVA test as the only long-term solution to tackling this devastating disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I have made it clear that the vaccine is like Sisyphus—it is always out there and we are always reaching for it, but it is always a few years out. Sadly, as of this afternoon, we are not in a position to introduce a vaccination programme, because it is only 50% to 60% effective and we do not yet have a fully worked-out DIVA test to differentiate diseased and vaccinated animals. I sympathise entirely with her pained expression, and I would love to go ahead this afternoon and press a button saying “Vaccine”, but we sadly do not have it yet.

Dairy Industry

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this timely debate.

I speak not only as someone who has the honour of serving on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) but as someone who cares about fairness and the value that we as consumers should place on the items we buy to eat and drink.

My hon. Friends and I want a fair deal for both farmers and food manufacturers through a competitive and equitable supply chain for producers, processors and retailers alike. Hopefully, the voluntary dairy code, agreed between the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), to whom tribute has already been paid, Dairy UK and the National Farmers Union will positively address problems between members of the supply chain. The Government have described the code as a

“robust and proactive basis for a more effective system of raw milk contracts that will provide greater certainty and clarity for all parties.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 18WS.]

The question remains: is that voluntary approach enough? Should the Government strengthen the code with additional measures, including legislation? Will the Government consider Labour’s request for a strengthened regulator across the whole supply chain, including the dairy sector, to avoid the crisis we have seen affect dairy farmers during the past year?

Although DEFRA has engaged with the farming industry and retailers to develop the code, the Department of Health, in considering the future administration of the nursery milk scheme, is possibly putting at risk prices paid to farmers. Concerns have been raised with me by the School and Nursery Milk Alliance, a group of organisations, including from the dairy sector, committed to promoting the benefits to children’s health and well-being of drinking milk in schools and nurseries.

The Department of Health is considering four options, one of which would create a national contract for the supply and delivery of milk to all early years settings. That option would involve consortia taking part in a competitive tender for the direct supply and delivery of milk at an agreed price to all child care providers registered with the scheme. The Department of Health seems to favour that option, as it is the most cost-effective measure. The alliance, however, has serious concerns that that delivery system may have a detrimental effect on the dairy sector if the Department of Health uses the supermarket price as a benchmark for the provision of milk.

The alliance urges the Government to consider the impact of a national contract on the dairy supply chain, especially the potential pressure on farmers to reduce prices further. There are further concerns that a national contract may also reduce local purchasing, affecting retailers and dairies alike.

On behalf of the alliance, I ask the Minister to make the case to his colleagues in the Department of Health regarding the implications of the proposed changes to the administration of the nursery milk review for dairy farmers. It is good that DEFRA should work with the dairy industry and farming unions to ensure an equitable system of pricing, but that work must not be undermined by any other Departments looking to make savings in their budgets.

I said at the beginning of my speech that I was concerned about the value that we as consumers place on what we eat and drink. It is time we looked at the real cost of the items we all take for granted in our shopping baskets. Support for the dairy industry and other food producers should come from the Government and other bodies, but until the consumer fully understands the effort and dedication by our food producers that go into each pint of milk or unit of food, and voices that understanding to retailers and others, will a fair price ever be achieved for commodities, including milk and dairy products? In the meantime, I hope that the voluntary code is successfully implemented, but I urge the Government to prepare to legislate for the fairest system possible.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and to hear about the historical links to modern fishing. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under a Chair with so much knowledge of EFRA issues and the huge enthusiasm to match it. It rubs off on all Committee members.

It was extremely useful and informative to take part in the Committee’s visits to Hastings and Denmark, particularly to speak with the fishermen at the heart of the industry. I was truly amazed by their patience, perseverance and resilience in working with the common fisheries policy as it is now. It was a humbling experience to meet those people. My one regret was visiting the fish-gutting factory. As one of the queasiest people on this planet and despite having a heavily perfumed handkerchief, I can smell it in my nostrils to this day.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear the hon. Lady’s criticism of the work she had to undertake, but perhaps I could make a suggestion and possibly a criticism. In researching the report, it might have been worth visiting areas and jurisdictions outside the EU perhaps running more successful fisheries policy. Perhaps the Committee could do that if another report is required. It could do some useful work visiting Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway, for instance, and produce another report for us next year perhaps.

[Mrs Glindon]

Discussion of that might fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee at a later date.

I spoke when the House debated the CFP last November. The fish quay at the port of North Shields had a thriving industry when I was a child. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I, too, have seen the industry diminish slowly over the years, and it is now a shadow of what it once was. In that debate, I raised issues from the point of view of the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. I will now relate those observations to some of the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee’s report.

NIFCA knows, from local experience, that achieving the vision and reform of the CFP has practical limitations, and it is clear that local factors need to be taken into account. The area covered by NIFCA stretches from the Scottish borders down to the Tyne, and is a mixed-fishery area, so achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2015 would be unrealistic. Having a more flexible date would therefore be a great help to our fishing industry. The recommendation in the Committee’s report to adopt the less rigid time scale of 2020 is therefore welcome and supports NIFCA’s view.

NIFCA also feels that achieving maximum sustainable yield would be crucial to determining multi-annual plans, but that the ambitious target date of 2015 could create the danger of unnecessary fishery closures. The emphasis should be on local measures to ensure sustainable and viable fisheries. Some such measures are deployed in our area now.

Like many colleagues in the Chamber today, NIFCA has stressed the need for regionalisation, down to the district level—indeed, as far as IFCAs—to strike the right balance and fully involve stakeholders. The Committee’s identification of a means to interpret the EU’s exclusive competence over certain aspects of fisheries policy—so as to allow member states to act independently to amend the common fisheries policy, albeit without requiring treaty change—gives hope for achieving NIFCA’s vision of regionalisation. DEFRA and the Government should seize on that recommendation and work with other member states to bring it to fruition.

NIFCA is continuing the commitment shown by the former sea fisheries committee to reforming the EU’s policy on discards, but believes that the Government should stress to the Commission both that there must be investment in appropriate infrastructure to enable local fleets to dispose of unwanted catch and that technical advances must also be taken into account. The authority thinks that the Government should play a bigger role in consumer education, to ensure that the extra catch landed can be marketed more effectively, as part of the overall discard reduction strategy. Ultimately, our local fishermen believe that the prospect of a complete end to discards has not been set out in sufficient detail to be viable, and that there needs to be a further debate with the industry on the issue. The recommendation to delay the discard ban until 2020 is therefore justified by those observations.

It is in the Government’s hands to negotiate a fair deal in reforming the common fisheries policy and ensure a sustainable marine environment and a viable future for our fishing communities. To that end, the Government should heed today’s motion and the Committee’s report on the proposals to reform the common fisheries policy.

Fisheries

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

I should like to put forward briefly the perspective of our local fishing industry. I was born in the former county borough of Tynemouth, which is now part of the Tynemouth and North Tyneside constituencies. The motto on the coat of arms of the former county borough was,

“Our harvest is from the deep”,

and the coat of arms proudly displayed the figures of a coal miner and a fisherman. Sadly, we no longer have any coal mines and our fishing fleet is very much diminished, but this diminished industry is still important to the local economy and local culture.

The recently formed Northumberland inshore fisheries and conservation authority, or IFCA, has put forward its views on the reform of the common fisheries policy to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, after extensive consultation with officers from the Marine Management Organisation and representatives from the commercial and recreational fisheries and the marine science and councillor sectors.

IFCA’s vision is to

“lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries, by successfully securing the right balance between social, environmental and economic benefits to ensure healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and a viable industry”.

That vision has parallels with the aims of the EU Commission to reform the common fisheries policy. But Northumberland’s IFCA knows from local experience that achieving the vision and reform of the common fisheries policy is subject to practical limitations and it is clear that local factors need to be taken into account.

The area covered by the Northumberland IFCA stretches along the north-east coast from the Scottish borders to, and including, the Tyne. It is a mixed fisheries area, so the aim of achieving a maximum sustainable yield by 2015 would be unrealistic in that area. A more flexible date for that target would therefore be of great help to our fishing industry. Northumberland IFCA also feels that achieving maximum sustainable yield will be crucial to determining multi-annual plans, which, with an ambitious target date of 2015, could create the danger of unnecessary fisheries closures. The emphasis should be on local measures that will ensure sustainable and viable fisheries, such as the lobster V-notching permit scheme and pot limitation, with buy-in from the local industry, which currently operate in Northumberland. The idea of regionalisation cannot be stressed strongly enough, and not only in relation to large areas such as the North sea. Within regions, the specific needs of districts such as the IFCA areas must be taken into account to strike the right balance and involve stakeholders.

I am pleased that the Northumberland IFCA is continuing the interest shown by the former sea fisheries committee in the EU’s commitment to reform the discards policy. However, our fishermen feel that the Government must stress to the Commission that there must be investment in appropriate infrastructure to enable local fleets to dispose of unwanted catch. Technical advances must also be taken into account. The Government should play a role in consumer education to ensure that extra catches that are landed can be marketed more effectively.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend’s point about consumer education is very important, because this issue is relevant to others as well as to fishing communities. I think that the number of fishermen left in my constituency can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but this issue concerns the wider community, and that is precisely what is behind this idea—the motivation of communities as a whole to stop the scandal of fish discards.

[Mrs Glindon]

Yes; the Fish Fight campaign has demonstrated that nationally.

Consumer education would, one hopes, help with marketing the catch that is currently discarded. Ultimately, however, our local fishermen believe that the prospect of a complete end to discards has not yet been set out in sufficient detail to be a viable prospect, and that further debate with the industry is needed.

Livelihoods have been diminished in our fisheries, with resulting economic and social downturns across communities. As the Government are committed to localism, that should be extended to DEFRA’s approach to the common fisheries policy on behalf of our fishing communities. I firmly believe that our prosperity does not depend simply on creating new industries and businesses but on sustaining those that already exist, which are trying hard to survive. It is in the hands of the Government to negotiate a fair deal for the reform of the common fisheries policy, to ensure the future of our fishing communities in a way that meets the vision of IFCA.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Badgers and Bovine TB

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I am pleased to have been granted the opportunity to initiate this debate. Although my constituency of North Tyneside is largely urban—it has only four farms—the interests of my constituents are many and varied. They cover a wide range, including concerns about the Government’s proposed culling of badgers.

I would never describe myself as an animal lover, but I would never wilfully hurt an animal. As a townie, I value being a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and in that role I have learned a lot about the issues that confront members of our rural and farming communities, the challenges they face in caring for the countryside and maintaining their animal herds, and the important role that they play in providing for the food chain. Furthermore, I have learned to respect their knowledge of and experience in all those matters.

Levels of bovine TB are unacceptable, not only for our farmers and the fate of their cattle, but for the taxpayer. Last year, 25,000 cattle were slaughtered, and almost £90 million was paid for testing and in compensation. The Environment Secretary has said that over the next 10 years, bovine TB will cost £1 billion in England alone if more action is not taken. However, it is the Government’s proposed action to tackle the issue that I wish to question.

Although the compulsory culling of cattle affected by bovine TB began more than 60 years ago, it was not until the early 1970s that badgers were thought to be the wildlife reservoir for the disease. The UK has one of the densest badger populations in Europe, with up to 30 per sq km in some areas. Badgers are a native species that is widespread across the UK, and live in setts underground in family or social groups of related mature adults and young cubs. Each group defends its own territory, which has a source of food and water. They are creatures of habit and are extremely loyal to their setts. By law, they are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Bern convention.

A number of badger culling initiatives have been employed over the years to control bovine TB, but it was under the Labour Government that a full scientific study was undertaken. Following Professor John Krebs’s independent review, that Government set up the independent science review group, and the UK randomised badger culling trial began. The trial took place over a 10-year period in areas where there had been large numbers of TB cases in cattle. However, the cull was suspended in 2003 when it was found that survivors of partly culled setts were wandering away and spreading the disease. Following extensive research, the study reported in 2007 and concluded that badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in the UK.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not aware that there was proof after the trials that TB in cattle was reduced by some 27% as a result of culling, and that while there was, as she correctly indicated, perturbation around the edges of the area in which the cull took place, within a year that had lessened? In other words, the Krebs trials demonstrated that culling is effective. Indeed, the report of the EFRA Committee, on which the hon. Lady sits, came to that conclusion in the previous Parliament.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but against that evidence it has been shown that the results are not as favourable in smaller experiments.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the scientific evidence suggests that, at best, a comprehensive culling policy would lead to a 16% reduction in bovine TB, but only after nine years in the culling zones? The Government’s proposal is to undertake a number of pilot projects before rolling out the programme, which is not an effective way forward.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with her. This is the basis on which the Government are advancing their proposals—nothing better, just the same.

In 2008, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), decided that, based on the evidence, it was not right to risk the cull because it could have made the disease worse. He stated that the then Government would concentrate on other measures, including investing in the development of an effective TB vaccine for both cattle and badgers.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I am encouraged that we are having this debate. What is the vaccine called that the hon. Lady mentioned? My understanding is that no effective vaccine is in place yet, that the trials are ongoing and that frankly, the vaccine does not exist. An injectable vaccine would be incredibly costly and difficult to administer, and would have no effect on badgers that already carry this terrible disease.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My understanding, from looking at the Wildlife Trust’s vaccine programme in Gloucestershire, is that BCG vaccines are effective. The trust is carrying out that programme by trapping the badgers and injecting them. The trial took place over the summer and the costs are being looked at, but the programme is under way. I am no scientist, but the injections are similar to BCG injections for humans.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady allowing me to intervene again on this important point. I am aware of those Gloucestershire trials, which are important. I declare an interest as a member of the British Veterinary Association, which cares about animals and their welfare. On those trials, it states that

“to conclude from this report that the badger vaccine is a viable alternative to culling in eradicating TB is unrealistic at best and spin at worst.”

The fact is that frankly, trapping a wild badger and trying to inject it and trace it for the next five years—as the hon. Lady has said, there is a large badger population—would be impossible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the Government’s proposals on culling are not being monitored and have no scientific fact behind them. The vaccine trials are ongoing and should be pursued. Unfortunately, the Government closed down five of the six trials, thus limiting what can be done, but they themselves are going to put £20 million into vaccine development.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Clearly, there will be different views on a number of issues in this debate, and I welcome that. I should like, however, to clarify the situation on vaccines, so that the debate can progress on a positive, factual basis. As has been said, a licensed injectable vaccine is being used by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. However, that is not a trial. The trust is undertaking a programme of vaccinating badgers on its own land and, as I say, is not carrying out a trial.

On the six projects to which the hon. Lady referred, yes, I cancelled five of them, but they were not trials either. They were called vaccine deployment projects and were purely designed to work out the mechanics of catching and vaccinating badgers and to train the operators. Those projects were not trials to establish whether the vaccine works; we know it works to a large extent, which is why it is licensed.

Forgive me for taking so long, Mr Crausby, but I think these points are helpful. An oral vaccine has not been developed. There have been a number of attempts to do so in New Zealand, as well as in this country, but we are still many years away from it. Just for the record, a cattle vaccine is more imminent but, as no doubt we will discuss, we have major problems with the EU in getting agreement to use it.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the Minister for his valuable intervention and for clarifying the issue. I hope his comments will be useful to the rest of the debate.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Many of us are intervening on the question of a vaccine. I am a farmer and I love wildlife. We would desperately like to have a vaccine that we felt was going to be effective, but for as long as I can remember—I have been involved with this issue for about 40 years—a vaccine has been about 10 years away. What we need from the hon. Lady is an idea of what the Opposition would genuinely do.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was made from his professional stance. The vaccine issue is very important, and the previous Government were totally committed to it because they appreciated the situation of the farmers and of the animals affected by this horrendous disease. That is why the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, decided to concentrate on developing a vaccine. Such a decision was based on the scientific evidence that culling was not the way forward, and because he put faith in developing the vaccine, he set up the Bovine TB Eradication Group for England. The measures proposed by that group did not at any point include going along with culling, because it believed that the scientific evidence from 10 years of trials did not conclude that culling would bring any success.

Based on the scientific findings of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle, Labour in opposition remains opposed to a cull. The new Labour-led Assembly in Wales have put a halt to a proposed cull and are concluding a review into the scientific evidence. The coalition claim that it is

“committed, as part of a package of measures, to develop affordable options for a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB”,

and that

“the proposals are based on the best available scientific and veterinary evidence”.

However, despite that claim, the Secretary of State, supported by the Minister, is proposing to allow a cull of badgers to take place.

The scientific evidence upon which the previous Labour Government based their decision not to go ahead with culling but to seek to develop successful vaccination was supported by experts and organisations such as those already mentioned—for example, the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is also important to note that the people who made up the important group set up by the Labour Government included representatives from the Royal College of Surgeons, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other science groups. The emphasis has always been on scientific evidence, which, as I have said, is still what the Opposition consider the best way forward. It is only through scientific evidence that any action can be taken.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Lady makes great play of the scientific evidence that came before the previous Government. However, she will remember that the scientific evidence was carefully balanced and that, for example, the chief veterinary adviser to the Government came down on the side of the cull. Does she not remember that the reason why the former vegetarian Secretary of State for DEFRA came down against a cull was because he believed that the social and, dare I say, political and even economic consequences of allowing a cull would be larger than the veterinary benefits? The issue was not actually about science; it was about whether a cull was politically acceptable.

[Mrs Glindon]

The chief veterinary adviser based what he said on scientific evidence and his professional judgment was not swayed in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

[Mr Paice]

On the science, has the hon. Lady read the document on the DEFRA website that states:

“Bovine TB - Key conclusions from the meeting of scientific experts, held at DEFRA on 4th April 2011”?

I will not read out all the names listed on that document, but there are about 10 of them, including all the scientists who were involved in the trials and in many other aspects of the matter. The science is agreed. There should be no dispute about the science; indeed, hon. Members have already discussed the science. The document that I am referring to clearly sets out the figures and refers to 16%, which has been quoted. That is the science; the issue is what conclusion is derived from it. Has she read that document?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

I have spent about 20 hours trying to read everything that I can in preparation for the debate. I have not read the specific names, but I maintain that the information that I have read on the DEFRA website and in other publications indicates that the science base against culling accepted by the previous Labour Government was right and remains so.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at that meeting, scientists said that they were concerned about the impact of free shooting and that the effects of the policy would be to create differences “either positively or negatively”? The scientists went on to say that such an approach would lead to a

“potential variability in outcome between areas.”

Is that not the case?

[Mrs Glindon]

I accept what my hon. Friend has said. That is the tenet that one hears over and over again.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Lady accept that no one is supporting the policy of a badger free shoot, as has been suggested? We are talking about a limited cull in specific areas, not a free-for-all free shoot.

[Mrs Glindon]

A free shooting policy would mean badgers being shot under licence, but not in a controlled way. We are talking about free shooting at random.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Will she comment on what is, as I understand it, the Home Secretary’s view on shooting and on the resources that will need to be taken from the police to deal with free shooting as a method of culling? The 20% cuts that are taking place across the country mean that that will present problems to our police forces.

[Mrs Glindon]

I was going to raise that issue with the Minister later. The cost of policing, which will be very contentious, is estimated at approximately £200,000 a year, which is one of the things that is not addressed in the Government’s proposals. The amount of money seems to have decreased.

The Minister’s proposals for controlled shooting deviate from those practised in the randomised badger culling trial. To elaborate on what I said earlier, the animals will be shot in the field at night, instead of using the accurate and humane method of caging, trapping and shooting, which was used in the trial. Badgers are difficult to approach, and they spend a lot of their time in the undergrowth. Their physiology makes it difficult for one random shot to kill them outright.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

During the 700 hours of debate on hunting in the previous Parliament, it was suggested that shooting was the humane alternative in wildlife control. Is the hon. Lady now saying that shooting is not as humane as it was when it was debated in the previous Parliament?

[Mrs Glindon]

I was not an MP at that time and did not follow that debate, but methods of shooting can be debated here.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government’s own wildlife crime unit raised concerns about that, saying that if the culls take place there is a danger of illegal badger persecution being carried out under the pretext of culling? There is a concern as to what that will do in terms of both community safety and public order.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point on animal welfare and criminality, which relates to public safety as well as to the badger community.

Under the randomised badger culling trial, culling took place over a short period of two weeks. It was found that a longer period of culling saw greater effects from perturbation. Unfortunately, the Government’s new proposals include a longer period of culling. Natural England has expressed concern at the lack of evidence available to demonstrate that a farm-led cull can replicate what has only been undertaken previously by Government.

The Government have designated Natural England as a licensing authority for the cull. Under the proposals, farmers and landowners will be expected to cull at least 70% of badgers in designated areas. However, there is no accurate information about the badger population, so the number to be killed cannot be specified. Without accurate data, culling could lead to extinction in some areas or, where too few badgers are killed, an increase in the negative effects of perturbation. Furthermore, it has been estimated that, as has been mentioned, the policing cost of dealing with protesters who are against the cull will amount to more than £200,000 per year, but Ministers have not specified where that amount will come from.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On the subject of cuts, a number of dairy farmers have approached me to say that the Government cuts to trading standards are having a real impact on cattle testing at market. I am sure that my hon. Friend will come on to the point that, while there is a responsibility on farmers to ensure that they are not transporting infected cattle around the country—there have been concerns about farmers swapping infected cattle and non-infected cattle—apparently there has been a decline in the effectiveness of testing at cattle markets, because trading standards are not being funded. Does she share my concern?

[Mrs Glindon]

Other important measures must also be upheld if we wish to curtail the incidence of bovine TB.

[Mr Paice]

Just for the record, so that the debate is based on facts, no testing is done at livestock markets. Let us be clear, because if we are going to debate the matter, let us base the debate on fact, not fiction.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is representing her constituents as truthfully as she can in this debate.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Certainly, I have been approached by dairy farmers who are opposed to the badger cull. They have told me that they are concerned about the cuts to trading standards, which mean that cattle markets are not being supervised in the way in which they should be. I do not know whether that is specifically about testing at markets or assessing in other ways whether infected animals are being sold there, as opposed to clinical testing, but I have certainly been told—I can put this on the record—by dairy farmers who go to market every week that that is having an impact.

[Mrs Glindon]

I hope that the Minister has noted my hon. Friend’s concerns.

The Minister and the Secretary of State should listen to the experts and the scientists and, instead of pressing forward with plans for culling, refocus their efforts to eradicate bovine TB by concentrating Government resources on developing vaccination methods, along with other measures that are currently being deployed. Other countries where bovine TB is a problem, such as New Zealand, Ireland and the USA, are all working on vaccines. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has carried out vaccine trials in Gloucestershire, as has been mentioned, so momentum is growing in that direction. Culling is not the answer. Sound scientific evidence tells us that we must move in a different direction and try to work with the measures, some of which the current Government are carrying forward, put in place by the previous Government, which definitely work.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point, and I am very grateful to her for securing today’s debate. [Interruption.] I wish that Government Members would not heckle, because it is so annoying. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has mentioned dairy farmers who are, quite rightly, opposed to this and who, quite rightly, do not want culling on their land. Will my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) spend a moment addressing the issues around a free-for-all cull, where licensed guns are wandering around looking for anything black and white moving in the undergrowth? Will she spend a moment addressing what will happen when there is a dairy farmer slap bang in the middle of one of these areas who says, “No, we are not having that on my land”? How will that affect the supposedly scientific cull?

[Mrs Glindon]

I have spent a number of hours reading all kinds of evidence about this, and the main worry about policing and control is that there is none. Natural England will license the guns, and farmers and landowners will come together and train people to shoot, but it must be emphasised that the shooting will not be controlled as it was under the scientific trials. The problem is that the shooting might be random and that there will be no one to enforce any safety measures whatever. The badgers will be shot as they are running or moving along as badgers do in the undergrowth, but who will keep people off the target site or ensure that the shot badgers are killed outright and not wandering off in pain to die a cruel death or, if wounded, wandering away from their setts and spreading the disease?

I urge the Minister to rethink culling. The science is the route, and the science says, “Do not cull!” Will the Minister consider the vaccine route? Resources should be poured into vaccine, ensuring that farmers and badgers have an equal say and that we do not look at killing before we look at curing.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The following are the answers given by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), relating to questions from the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time on 12 May 2011.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

1. What recent representations she has received from local authorities on her Department’s waste review.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My ministerial colleagues and I have met a wide range of local authority representatives to discuss our review of waste policy in England. Eighty local authorities, and a range of partnership groups, responded to our call for evidence and many have participated in subsequent discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials, emphasising the diversity of local circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

Can the Secretary of State tell me what DEFRA is doing to help local authorities to crack down on persistent fly-tippers in rural and urban areas?

[Mrs Spelman]

Responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping is also a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that, over time, the fines have been increased. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 makes provision for penalties for fly-tippers, and I want to make it perfectly clear from DEFRA’s perspective that it is a practice that we abhor, and that we seek to catch and prosecute those who perpetrate it.

[Official Report, 12 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 1333.]

An error has been identified in an oral answer given on 12 May 2011. It is the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) that makes provision for penalties for fly-tippers, not the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

1. What recent representations she has received from local authorities on her Department’s waste review. [Official Report, 23 May 2011, Vol. 528, c. 5-6MC.]

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My ministerial colleagues and I have met a wide range of local authority representatives to discuss our review of waste policy in England. Eighty local authorities, and a range of partnership groups, responded to our call for evidence and many have participated in subsequent discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials, emphasising the diversity of local circumstances.

[Mrs Glindon]

Can the Secretary of State tell me what DEFRA is doing to help local authorities to crack down on persistent fly-tippers in rural and urban areas?

[Mrs Spelman]

Responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping is also a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that, over time, the fines have been increased. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 makes provision for penalties for fly-tippers, and I want to make it perfectly clear from DEFRA’s perspective that it is a practice that we abhor, and that we seek to catch and prosecute those who perpetrate it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The previous Government committed £4.3 million to research on bee health, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I am happy to pay tribute to them for that. Of that sum, £2 million was for the insect pollinators initiative, and £2.3 million was for the healthy bees plan, and we hope that those resources will deliver results. I must say, however, that that was the result of a massive campaign by Back Benchers on both sides of the House, which forced the previous Government to commit those resources.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

11. When she plans to make an announcement on funding for individual flood defence schemes during the comprehensive spending review period.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

The Environment Agency has been consulting regional flood defence committees on the programme for 2011-12. The agency’s board will be deciding the allocation of funding to each region shortly. Information on individual schemes will be published as soon as possible. Decisions on funding for future years depend on the outcome of DEFRA’s consultation on the way schemes are funded.

[Mrs Glindon]

People in the north-east whose homes were devastated by the floods in 2008 have learned that planned flood defences have now been deferred. What message does the Minister have for those people who, as well as living with the worry of future floods, have the added financial concern of losing all insurance cover because those defences are not guaranteed to go ahead?

[Richard Benyon]

First, those schemes have not been rejected; they will be looked at again to ensure that they can provide good value for money for the taxpayer. Secondly, we are consulting on a payment-for-outcomes scheme, which for the first time will ensure transparency in flood funding, allowing local communities to understand where they are in the pecking order and how they can assist in ensuring that their flood schemes come forward. On insurance, we are working closely with the Association of British Insurers, so that we can ensure future cover after the statement of principles ends.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the nonsense. What is the point of having the whole superstructure of the Agricultural Wages Board simply to provide a 2p-an-hour premium over the minimum wage? That is part of the justification for saying that the board is not necessary. I stand with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members in wanting to see all farm and agricultural workers treated properly and receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but we need to bring agricultural wages regulations into the present day so that the modern, efficient businesses in my constituency and his can grow, expand and provide more job opportunities, not fewer.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

14. What recent representations she has received on the proposed cull of badgers to reduce the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

A public consultation is currently under way on a badger control policy to tackle bovine tuberculosis. As of yesterday evening, we have received 1,613 responses from a variety of individuals and organisations. I would encourage anyone with a view to respond to the consultation, which closes on 8 December. We will be making a decision on the Government’s approach early next year.

[Mrs Glindon]

What public order advice has the Minister received on badger cull licences?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to encourage the procurement of food of British origin by the public sector.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to encourage the procurement of food of British origin by the public sector.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

We are committed to ensuring that food procured by Government Departments, and eventually the whole public sector, meets British or equivalent standards of production wherever this can be achieved without increasing overall costs. I have written to ministerial colleagues asking them to look closely at how they can help us to meet this objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

The Secretary of State referred to the fact that she has asked the Cabinet to implement her policy on food procurement. Will she explain more about the practical policies that she will implement to ensure that this procurement goes ahead?

[Mrs Spelman]

Again, I can give the hon. Lady this assurance. I have just said that I have written to all Departments about the importance that the coalition attaches to encouraging the public sector to procure food to the highest possible standards, followed up by the development of Government buying standards for food. However, I would like to give her some encouragement regarding our progress. It is demonstrable that we can implement this policy without increasing overall costs. Nottingham city council is a good example. It procures 90% of its fresh food from the east midlands area while demonstrating that the average cost per meal is 30% lower than the national average. That fact is welcomed by the Secretary of State for Health.