Executive Agencies
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The business plans for the following agencies and their key performance measures have been published today. Business plans are available online at the agencies’ websites.
Animal Health Veterinary Laboratory Agency, http://www.defra. gov.uk/ahvla/
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/
Food and Environment Research Agency, http://fera.defra. gov.uk/
Rural Payments Agency, http://rpa.defra.gov.uk/rpa/index. nsf/home
Veterinary Medicines Directorate, http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/
I have placed copies of the key performance measures in the Libraries of both Houses.
National Adaptation Programme/Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I wish to inform the House that I have today laid in Parliament both a report on the “National Adaptation Programme” and the “Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power”.
National Adaptation Programme
Recent extreme weather in Britain, such as the flooding last year, has brought into sharp relief just how important anticipating and managing weather extremes can be. In the case of flooding, the costs of rebuilding can run in to hundreds of millions of pounds. Essential public services such as schools and hospitals can be heavily disrupted and business—particularly small businesses—can be hit severely. Extreme weather abroad also affects us at home. For example, harvest failures abroad can push up food prices here.
The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Government to undertake a climate change risk assessment, followed by the publication of a national adaptation programme. In January 2012 the Government published the “Climate Change Risk Assessment” (CCRA). This brought together the best available evidence, using a consistent framework to identify the main risks and opportunities related to climate change. The Government’s response to the CCRA is the first National Adaptation Programme (NAP).
The report on the National Adaptation Programme I am publishing today sets out the progress we have achieved through the programme and describes what the Government consider to be the most urgent areas for action structured around seven themes: built environment, infrastructure, healthy and resilient communities, agriculture and forestry, natural environment and business. The themes address a range of different types of risk. These include: flooding, water availability, extreme weather events and heat waves.
However, the Government cannot act alone. That is why I am delighted that we have worked so closely with so many experts from outside Government—from industry, from local government and from civil society and the report describes action by the Government and these other organisations. All the actions agreed so far are listed in a section of the report called the “Register of Adaptation Actions”. These preparations, based on the best evidence and a spirit of partnership, will help avoid costs and damage and so support the growth of a stronger and more balanced economy.
The National Adaptation Programme is primarily for England but also covers reserved, excepted and non-devolved matters. The individual devolved Administrations are developing their own programmes and the Government are working with them on areas of common interest to ensure a consistent approach in the shape and focus of all the programmes.
Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power
The Adaptation Reporting Power was introduced under the Climate Change Act and aims to:
ensure climate change risk management is systematically undertaken by reporting authorities;
help ensure public services and infrastructure are resilient to climate change;
monitor the level of preparedness of key sectors to climate change.
Following consultation, the strategy I am publishing today sets out a voluntary approach for the second round of reporting. I will invite those organisations which took part in the first round of adaptation reporting to provide progress updates on the actions that they set out in their reports to Government. These organisations are primarily from the energy, water and transport sectors. I will also invite a small number of organisations to report for the first time on their assessment of the current and predicted risks and opportunities from climate change to their functions, as well as their proposals and policies for adapting to climate change. I am not intending to issue directions to organisations to report under the second round of the adaptation reporting power.
I am placing these documents in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be published on: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/adapting-to-climate-change
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 and 25 June in Luxembourg. Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA also attended.
The Irish presidency’s objective for council was to obtain political agreement from member states on the four regulations that set out the rules for the common agricultural policy (CAP) over the 2014-20 financial period. An agreement was reached on a revised mandate late on Tuesday night. On the basis of that mandate, the presidency was then able to reach an outline agreement with the European Parliament on Wednesday 26 June.
The UK agreed to the mandate on the direct payments, rural development and the horizontal regulations. Overall I do not think the CAP package represents genuine reform. However, thanks to our efforts, working with other like-minded member states, it is in a much better state than the original proposals. By agreeing a deal on these regulations we have provided certainty for farmers and delivery bodies.
On the direct payments regulation, I argued strongly on the importance of flexibility for member states to deliver the Commission’s “greening” proposals, if they wish to, through national certification schemes, allowing all the regions of the UK the possibility to achieve a better balance between costs and environmental benefits than if we were to apply the measures set out in the Commission’s original proposal. On coupled support, the prospect of return to tobacco subsidies has been successfully resisted. However, it is disappointing that there is not a common set of rules for member states and there will be an opportunity to increase the use of coupled schemes. This is a backward step as EU agriculture has made good progress in phasing out subsidy linked to production. In terms of simplification there will be a mandatory active farmer test but we successfully negotiated this should only be based on assessing against a much shorter list of business types. In addition, the small farmer measure will also be voluntary though the young farmer provisions ended up as mandatory.
On rural development, the agreed regulation will enable all regions of the UK to deliver environmental benefits and rural economic growth through their rural development programmes. A solution was found which removes the threat of farmers being paid twice, once under each pillar of the CAP, for carrying out the same environmental measures. Member states will also have to spend at least 30% of their rural development budget on environmental measures. This is important to help support farmers in their crucial role in enhancing and protecting the natural environment.
On the horizontal (finance and control) regulation, there was the inclusion of some UK-inspired simplifications. This includes on areas such as audit provisions, having a longer transition period for mapping requirements under the greening measures, and a more proportionate approach on penalties. The ability to use a monthly average euro to sterling exchange rate may also help give more certainty to farmers and paying agencies who decide to use this option.
Together with Germany I abstained in the vote on the single common market organisation (single CMO). In an attempt to secure agreement with the European Parliament, changes were introduced which did not continue on the trajectory of reform. Market intervention is unnecessary, costly, and should only be used in times of genuine crisis as it has negative effects on farmers’ abilities to respond to market signals and consumer demand. While end dates have been set for production quotas for sugar beet and planting rights for vines, these have been extended beyond dates previously agreed. Nor were adequate safeguards introduced for the sugar refinery sector. This is bad for businesses and consumers, and will keep prices artificially high. In addition, I was unhappy with the move to allow the European Parliament’s involvement in decisions on reference prices and intervention prices that was part of the final agreement. I believe this does not adhere to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union principles on the balance of responsibilities between the Council and the European Parliament. It was right that the UK took a principled stand.
Throughout the negotiations, I worked closely with all of the devolved Administrations and, as a result, secured outcomes that successfully address some of their key concerns. Most importantly, I achieved a statement from the European Commission which acknowledges that all four regulations can be implemented regionally, in line with the UK’s devolution arrangements. I also obtained a smoother transition than in the Commission’s original text from historical to area-based direct payments, a switch that the devolved Administrations have yet to make. Finally, I was able to ensure that the text included a provision giving them flexibility to utilise their regional reserves to top-up payments to new entrants to farming, an issue which was particularly important to the Scottish Government.
There was one AOB point on the Council agenda from a number of member states who had been affected by flooding in central and eastern Europe. The Council noted concerns on the impact on agriculture in these countries and noted that there were a number of existing tools available that member states could draw on to provide additional support in such times of crisis.
Triennial Reviews
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Today I am publishing the report of the review of the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE), which I launched in December 2012, and the report of the review of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which commenced in March 2013.
These reviews have taken a fundamental look at how the bodies can continue to deliver the Government’s priorities for the environment with improved resilience in the face of current and future environmental and economic challenges.
I have concluded that the EA and NE should be retained as separate public bodies with separate purposes and functions, but that both bodies should continue to reform how they deliver their services to their customers and drive further efficiencies.
The bodies will be tasked with delivering the conclusions of the reviews, developing a jointly owned implementation plan in close consultation with DEFRA. DEFRA will hold to account the leadership of both bodies for the delivery of the reforms.
Working with the devolved Administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales on the review of JNCC, I have concluded that JNCC is the most appropriate organisation to deliver its functions, and should be retained as a non-departmental public body. The review has identified a number of measures to deliver a more effective and efficient service which JNCC will now implement, developing their implementation plans in close consultation with DEFRA and the devolved Adminstrations, and reporting regularly on progress.
The reports of these reviews will be published online, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
EU Environment Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
My noble Friend Lord de Mauley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Resource Management, the Local Environment and Environmental Science, represented the UK at the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 18 June. Paul Wheelhouse, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also attended.
After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative “A” items, Environment Ministers adopted council conclusions on the Commission’s strategy on adaptation to climate change, making only one change to the text. Member states and the Commission shared the view that the conclusions represented a good balance of opinions. Portugal called for inclusion of specific examples of the impacts of climate change in the text. This received broad support and the conclusions were adopted with this amendment. The Commission urged Environment Ministers to be aware of discussions on the uptake of adaptation measures in other policy areas, for example in the common agricultural policy. Member states underlined the importance of taking action on adaptation, with many expressing sympathy to those member states who had recently suffered from severe flooding, and praised various aspects of the Commission’s strategy, especially on mainstreaming adaptation into EU policies and improving knowledge sharing.
The Irish presidency then introduced its progress report on negotiations to amend directives relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and the promotion of energy from renewable sources, in order to address the indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts of biofuels. The presidency acknowledged that there were diverging opinions, but hoped that consensus could be reached. Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard defended the Commission’s proposal, arguing that it represented a reasonable balance between delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions and respecting existing investments in biofuels. The presidency invited brief comments from member states, but indicated that substantive discussion would take place at working group level. Several member states, including the UK, intervened. Points raised included the need for robust action; the proposed 5% cap on crop-based biofuels; the advanced biofuel sub-target; and mutual recognition of national biofuel certification schemes.
On the follow-up to the United Nations conference on sustainable development (“Rio+20”), Ministers endorsed Council conclusions on the overarching post-2015 agenda and exchanged views on the links between the UN Secretary General’s high-level panel report on the post-2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals. Commissioner Potocnik welcomed the Council conclusions and noted that they gave a clear signal for an integrated framework. He drew particular attention to six issues: the promotion of drivers for the green economy; the role of sustainable consumption; the need for planetary boundaries to be respected; the need for an integrated approach in developing the future framework; improving the financing of the post-2015 framework; and the need to speak with one EU voice. Member states were broadly positive about the Council conclusions. Ministers also responded to the presidency’s questions on the links between the UN’s high-level panel of eminent persons on the post 2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The presidency noted strong support from member states for the high-level panel report, for a single development agenda, and for the five transformational shifts—particularly for the focus on sustainable development. The presidency noted that there was no consensus yet on the priority areas but that it was important to more fully integrate the environment into the goals.
Under AOB items, the Council took note of the Irish presidency’s note on the aviation emissions trading scheme. The Commission called upon Ministers to agree upon a regional market-based system; indicated that it was important for the EU to speak with one voice in international negotiations; and highlighted the importance of foreign airlines being included in the “stop the clock” system. The Council then took note of the presidency’s progress report on negotiations on the fluorinated greenhouse gases proposal, with the Commission referencing the recent US-China agreement on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). On the environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive, the presidency summarised the discussion so far. The Commission observed that everyone wanted the EIA to be more effective and efficient, and that harmonisation across the EU was necessary to create a level playing field. On access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, the presidency recapped the discussion that took place at March Council. The Commission was confident that progress made under the Irish presidency would be a good basis for discussions with the European Parliament after the summer.
Continuing with the AOB items, the deputy ambassador from the Netherlands introduced an information note to the Council on micro-plastic litter in the environment. Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark intervened in favour of the Netherlands proposal, while the UK encouraged further voluntary action with industry. The Commission welcomed the Netherlands initiative, and indicated that it would look into the issue in the context of its Green Paper on plastic waste. Hungary then introduced its information note on the forthcoming “Budapest water summit”, which will take place 8-11 October 2013. Finally, the incoming Lithuanian presidency set out its work programme for the coming six months.
Ministers then broke for a working lunch, during which the marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) was discussed. Professor Laurence Mee, director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, gave a presentation on the main challenges for implementation of the MSFD. A wide-ranging discussion followed, with an emphasis on blue and green growth. Commissioner Damanaki (DG MARE) spoke about the common fisheries policy, and about the importance of working together to tackle marine pollution. The Commissioner confirmed thatj its current view was that targets on marine litter would not be mandatory, and that any consideration of targets would be on a Europe-wide basis rather than at a national level.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 24 and Tuesday 25 June in Luxembourg. I will be representing the UK, accompanied by Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA.
Monday and Tuesday will concentrate on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. There are no fishery items scheduled for this Council.
Council negotiations will centre on the four regulations that make up the CAP reform package. The Irish presidency will be looking to obtain a full political agreement on the CAP reform package during this Council.
Hazardous Waste (National Policy Statement)
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Having considered consultation responses and the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the draft national policy statement for hazardous waste which was laid before Parliament on 14 July 2011, I am today laying (under sections 9(8) and 5(4) of the Planning Act 2008), the proposed national policy statement for hazardous waste. The Government’s response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee report (under section 9(5) of the Planning Act 2008 was laid earlier this morning.
A written response to the consultation is also being published on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk.
National policy statements are critical to the new planning system, which will help developers bring forward hazardous waste projects of national significance without facing unnecessary delays. Decisions will be taken in an accountable way by elected Ministers taking social, environmental and economic impacts into account. The process will also ensure that local people have an opportunity to have their say about how their communities develop.
The hazardous waste national policy statement sets out our need for new hazardous waste infrastructure to manage the hazardous waste. Despite measures to prevent and minimise the production of hazardous waste, arisings have remained significant despite the economic downturn. DEFRA’s “Strategy For Hazardous Waste Management in England”, issued in 2010 sets out the Department’s policies for the management of hazardous waste, which are essentially to manage it in accordance with the waste hierarchy, so that we recycle or recover the waste where possible and reduce amounts sent for final disposal. That strategy set out the types of facility needed, some of which are nationally significant.
We look to the market to provide these facilities. The waste industry is best placed to consider the most appropriate types of technologies to use. Government’s role is to provide the right framework and encouragement to the private sector to bring the necessary infrastructure forward. This national policy statement sets out the framework in which decisions for applications for development consent for hazardous waste infrastructure will be made and should provide industry with the clarity it needs to bring forward applications for development consent for new infrastructure for hazardous waste.
The proposed national policy statement for hazardous waste will be designated if a period of 21 sitting days elapses without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, pursuant to section 5(4)(a) of the Planning Act 2008.
Badger Cull
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that bovine tuberculosis (TB) has, as a consequence of the lack of effective counter-measures, spread from a few isolated incidents to affect large parts of England and Wales, resulting in the slaughter of 28,000 cattle in England alone in 2012 at a cost of £100 million to the taxpayer; is concerned that 305,000 cattle have been slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of bovine TB in the last decade and that the cost is expected to rise to over £1 billion over the next 10 years; recognises that to deal effectively with the disease every available tool should be employed; accordingly welcomes the strengthening of bio-security measures and stringent controls on cattle movements; further welcomes the research and investment into both cattle and badger vaccines, and better diagnostic testing, but recognises that despite positive work with the European Commission the use of a viable and legal cattle vaccine has been confirmed to be still at least 10 years away; further notes that no country has successfully borne down on bovine TB without dealing with infection in the wildlife population, and that the Randomised Badger Control Trials demonstrated both the link between infection in badgers and in cattle and that culling significantly reduces incidence; looks forward to the successful conclusion of the current pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset; and welcomes the Government’s development of a comprehensive strategy to reverse the spread of bovine TB and officially eradicate this disease.”.
Today’s debate is about getting to grips with Mycobacterium bovis, a bacterium that can affect all mammals including humans and has proved to be extremely resistant to all manner of attempts at eradication. It is a subject on which, over many years, there has been a great deal of agreement between the political parties. That was certainly the case in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when a combination of political consensus and concerted action meant that we had the disease effectively beaten. In 1972, tests revealed only 0.1% of cattle in the country to be infected. I very much regret that as the issue has become politicised our grip on the disease has weakened, with the result that more than 60% of herds in high-risk areas such as Gloucestershire have been infected. The number of new cases is doubling every 10 years. I hope we can all agree that bovine TB is the most pressing animal health problem facing this country. The significance of the epidemic for our cattle farmers, their families and their communities cannot be overstated.
Miss McIntosh
The statistics show that the spread and increase in the United Kingdom is almost unique. Does my right hon. Friend attribute anything to the fact that we were, for very good reasons, the only country to have given the badger protected status in the 1970s—no other EU member state did so—so its natural predator has not been able to control the increase in numbers and the potential spread of disease through the badger population?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her question, and I thank her for her report published this morning. We are the only country that I know of with a significant problem with TB in cattle and a significant problem of TB in wildlife that does not bear down on the disease in wildlife. Section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allows the removal of diseased badgers for protection and to prevent disease.
This disease was once isolated in small pockets of the country, but it has now spread extensively through the west of England and Wales. Last year TB led to the slaughter of more than 28,000 cattle in England, at a cost to the taxpayer of almost £100 million. In the last 10 years bovine TB has seen 305,000 cattle slaughtered across Great Britain, costing the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that that sum will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. We cannot afford to let that happen.
If we do not take tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions, we will put at risk the success story that is the UK cattle industry. The UK’s beef and dairy exporters have worked hard to develop markets, which were valued at £1.7 billion in 2011. Our dairy exports alone grew by almost 20% in 2011. We cannot afford to put such important and impressive industry performance at risk.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The NFU in north Yorkshire supports my right hon. Friend’s policy. It is desperate that this disease should not come north to Yorkshire, and it gives the policy its full support.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he is in close touch with the farming community, and we appreciate that it is under great pressure, which is why we are determined to introduce measures that will, we hope, reduce the disease in high-risk areas and, crucially, stop it going into low-risk areas.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has highlighted the costs to the individual farmer and the taxpayer, but does he recognise that having disease-free cattle is important to the agri-food industry—a multi-billion pound industry in the United Kingdom that is especially important to economies such as Northern Ireland’s?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the potentially very serious impact on the agri-food industry if we do not get a grip on this disease. We are determined to work on this policy, and to learn the lessons from the experience of the neighbouring state of the Republic of Ireland and other countries.
The task of managing bovine TB and bringing it under control is difficult and complex, but that is no excuse for further inaction. This Government are committed to using all the tools at our disposal and continuing to develop new ones, because we need a comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease. International experience clearly shows that controlling wildlife species that harbour the disease and can pass it on to cattle must be part of that package.
Mrs Main
I have written to the Secretary of State on this matter. I asked about the impact of a cull in the context of the whole package of measures. I received a reply from one of his ministerial colleagues, which referred to the fall in badger TB rates in New Zealand, saying that was
“a result of rigorous biosecurity, strict cattle movement controls and proactive wildlife management.”
I have asked for clarification, however. How much of that success was attributed to the cull? The other two steps taken may well have contributed significantly. I hope the Secretary of State will expand on such details for the benefit of those of us who are torn over this matter.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, in which she raises one of the most pertinent points: there is no single solution. Removing wildlife alone is not the solution. There has to be parallel, and equally rigorous, work on cattle. There must be a mixture of both measures. That is the lesson to be learned from the countries I have recently visited, as I was just about to go on to explain.
In recent months, I have been to Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, and when I was in Opposition I went to the United States of America. All those countries have made great progress in dealing with very similar problems to ours by dealing with the wildlife reservoir and bearing down on the disease in cattle.
In Australia, a national eradication programme spanning almost three decades enabled official freedom from bovine TB—an infection rate of less than 0.2% under OIE rules—be achieved in 1997. Its comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease in domestic cattle and wildlife included rigorous culling of feral water buffalo. Australia’s achievement is even more impressive when one considers the difficulty of the terrain and the size of the area over which such an extensive programme of testing and culling took place.
After my visit to Australia, I went to New Zealand. Its comprehensive and successful package of measures to eradicate the disease has focused on the primary wildlife reservoir of brush-tailed possums. As a result of its efforts, New Zealand is on the verge of achieving BTB-free status. The number of infected cattle and deer herds has reduced from more than 1,700 in the mid-1990s to just 66 in 2012.
The Republic of Ireland, too, has a comprehensive eradication programme, which includes the targeted culling of badgers in areas where the disease is attributed to wildlife. From massive problems in the 1960s—160,000 cattle were slaughtered in 1962 alone—the Irish authorities have turned things around to the extent that the number of reactor cattle has reduced to just 18,000 in 2012, a fall of 10,000 in the last 10 years. On their own figures, herd incidence has fallen to just 4.26%—a statistic we would dearly love to have here.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is explaining the Government’s policy very well indeed. Does he have any idea what proportion of badgers culled in the Republic of Ireland were carriers of TB? No one wants to see badgers culled unless there is no alternative, but many of them are diseased and will in due course die and suffer great pain.
Mr Paterson
That is a very helpful question. On first analysis, the estimate was about 16%, but the Irish have done a huge amount of work on this, and I admire the scientific manner in which they have gone about it, and on detailed analysis and after careful autopsy the proportion can be seen to be three or four times higher than that. That shows why this disease is so difficult to deal with: it is difficult to identify in both wildlife and cattle.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Section 4.5 of the Krebs report had some important things to say about the Department—then called the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and mathematical modelling, which is a hugely important tool that is not used as widely as it could be. What is the Secretary of State going to do to help drive forward that part of the work, which is clearly needed, so we get a better understanding of what is happening, with or without the cull?
Mr Paterson
That is an interesting question. We are following on from the Krebs trials—the RBCTs or randomised badger culling trials—and going to the next logical step, by learning the lessons from them and improving on them. One of the lessons was that 100 km is not a big enough area. We will extend it to nearly 300 km, so we have clear, definitive geographical boundaries. We will also be doing more analysis of the impact. These are two pilots, but the broad lesson to be learned from the countries I have mentioned is that we have to bear down both on disease in cattle in a very rigorous manner, as we are doing, and on disease in wildlife.
When I was in opposition, I went to Michigan and saw its stringent cattle and wildlife controls, which have enabled significant progress to be made, with a lowering of the prevalence of the disease in white-tailed deer in the endemic area by more than 60% and breakdowns in livestock averaging just three or four a year from 2005 to 2011. I could go on at great length, but I know we are short of time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is giving a lot of international examples, but I would like to know what lessons he is learning from the vaccination project in Wales, which shows that there clearly is an alternative. I have read the results of the project closely, and I would like to know what lessons he has learned.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I ask him to wait a few minutes because I am coming on to deal with it. Let me first finish off the international comparisons.
Mark Tami
The Secretary of State has talked about how he has been around the world to look at all these approaches, but the science we are looking at is the science in the UK. Clearly, as even those in favour of a cull would agree, the actual progress it will make is very small, even if progress is taken as a fact. We need a combination of measures. As some Government Members have said, culling will make only a small difference and it will not eradicate the disease.
Mr Paterson
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite listened to what I said. If he makes comparisons with the countries I have mentioned, he will see that where there are strict cattle controls, movement controls and biosecurity, and countries bear down on the disease, the disease is reduced. The experience of the Republic of Ireland is spectacular and we should be humble enough to learn from it.
Let us consider other European countries. Badger culling is undertaken in France; there have been reports in just the past week or so of problems in the Ardennes, with infected badgers being culled. Deer and wild boar are culled in the Baltic countries, Germany, Poland and Spain. So we cannot ignore the lessons from such countries, which are so clearly presented to us.
Mr Paterson
I will take one more intervention, but I do want to give other hon. Members the chance to speak.
Steve McCabe
The Secretary of State is drawing on these European comparisons, so why does his own amendment talk about “stringent” movement controls, given that we have the loosest movement controls in the European Union, with about 40% of our cattle being moved annually? Surely he should start by doing something about that. Is that not a comparison he should recognise?
Mr Paterson
I do not think that is a very accurate statement. We have very strict movement controls and our farmers find them difficult to adhere to; they put real pressure on farmers.
If we are to tackle bovine TB, we must not only maintain rigorous biosecurity and strict cattle movement controls, but bear down on the disease in wildlife.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend will recollect that the randomised badger control trials studied not only the effects of culling on the badger population and the prevalence of TB, but the actions of homo sapiens, and their capacity to intervene and to disrupt trials. Such actions were a factor in the trials and are a factor particularly prevalent in the UK but not prevalent in many of the countries he has named.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that you are an assiduous reader of Hansard, Mr Speaker, and you probably remember every one of my 600 parliamentary questions on this issue, one of which revealed that, as my hon. Friend suggested, 56% of the traps were tampered with during the Krebs trials and 14% were actually stolen. That is one of the lessons we are learning from the trials—there might be a more efficient and humane manner of removing badgers.
Anyone who has looked closely at this issue will see that a comprehensive cattle testing programme, combined with restrictions on cattle movements, remains the foundation of our policy. Restrictions have been further strengthened over the past year to reduce the chance of disease spreading from cattle. In January, we introduced a new surveillance testing regime and stricter cattle movement controls, which means that we will be testing more cattle annually and working hard to get in front of the disease, to protect those parts of the country where bovine TB is not a major problem. We will continue to maintain the significant effort we have put into enhancing cattle controls and combating cattle-to-cattle transmission.
Mr Paterson
Other Members want to get speak, so, if I may, I will push on a bit further.
Vaccination is another tool that we will continue to invest in—we are spending £15.5 million on research and development in this Parliament—one that I know many hon. Members would like to see deployed. Some £43 million has been invested since 1994 in this vital work, to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded. We, too, would like to deploy it more widely, but I am afraid that we are just not there yet in terms of either development or practicality, as has been clearly described in this morning’s Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report.
Oral cattle and badger vaccines will, I hope, prove viable, but they will not be ready to deploy for years, and we cannot wait while the disease puts more livestock farms out of business and threatens the sustainability of the industry. In January, the Minister of State and I met the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, Tonio Borg, to discuss our progress towards a cattle vaccine. He acknowledged that we have done more than any other country to take this work forward, but confirmed that the implementation of a legal and validated cattle vaccine is still at least 10 years away.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Will the Secretary of State clarify the comments he made a moment ago? If a viable badger vaccination, be it oral or injectable, were developed within the next few years, would he then have no intention to proceed with any cull? Would it be his preference to move forward with the vaccination of badgers instead?
Mr Paterson
I was going to come on to deal with that question but I will touch on it now. Clearly, an effective badger vaccine has a valuable role to play, once the disease is under control. I have discussed this at length in the Republic of Ireland, where they have got the disease well on the way down. Once it can be got to those really low levels—this answers the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—there is a definitely a role for a badger vaccine. There is no question about that, but the vaccine has to work.
My worry—I am jumping ahead a bit in respect of Wales here—is that at the moment there is nothing to be gained by vaccinating a diseased animal. Such an animal can continue to be a super-excreter and can continue to spread disease. That is the problem I have with the Welsh experiment. We are very interested in it and we will watch it carefully, but from my travels—I was particularly struck by the Irish experience, and they have done a lot of work on this—I know that the lesson is, “You have to get the disease down to a certain level to get healthy badgers, and then you protect them.” We all want to see healthy badgers living alongside healthy cattle, and the real lesson from Ireland is that the average badger there is now 1 kg heavier than before the cull was begun there. So the Irish have achieved where we want to go; they are getting a healthy badger population, which is exactly what we want, but that is the point at which vaccinations can be deployed. I am not entirely convinced that the Welsh Government are on the right track—I think they are going in too early, because they have not got a grip on the disease—but we wish them well.
Sadly, vaccination is incredibly expensive. The cost of vaccination in Wales stands at £662 per badger or £3,900 per square kilometre per year. Even if the practical difficulties could be addressed, we know that a large-scale programme of badger vaccination would take longer to achieve disease control benefits compared with a programme of culling on a similar scale.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to one area of healthy badgers, just to draw on his point about vaccination? Cheshire is on the frontier in terms of the disease spreading north. I am working closely with Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the National Farmers Union to see whether there is the possibility of having a vaccinated band of badgers across Cheshire to prevent that northern spread. Will he work with those two organisations and me to see what can be practically achieved?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that useful question. I know that he is already talking to my hon. Friend the Minister of State about it. It is certainly worth examining the approach of creating rings, but the lesson from other countries is that we have really got to get the disease reservoir down first and then we can create a band. The problem is that with the level of disease we are talking about we cannot gain an advantage by vaccinating a diseased animal that is already a super-excreter—it can go on excreting disease in huge volumes. Another of my questions revealed that 1 ml of badger urine produces 300,000 colony forming units of disease, and it takes very few—a single number of those—to infect a cattle by aspiration. Such an approach will not have the effect, so what my right hon. Friend is talking about is well worth looking at, but in parallel with that we have to get the disease down.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Secretary of State for so generously giving way. Does he recall comparing the search by scientists for a TB vaccine to Sisyphus—or Tantalus, as he later clarified it—because it was always out of reach? Does he understand how insulting many scientists found that comparison and how it undermines his scientific credibility? If he does not understand how science works, how we can trust his analysis of the evidence?
Mr Paterson
I think the hon. Lady is being a little hard. We have given credit to the previous Government, whom she supported, for their significant investment in vaccines. We will continue that investment, we had Commissioner Borg over and we had an incredibly constructive discussion. Sisyphus is trying to shove the rock uphill and Tantalus is reaching in the pool—it is incredibly frustrating for us all that a result is still 10 years away.
Let me get back to the badger vaccine and the important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). Early small trials on calves in Ethiopia show that it is only 56% to 68% effective. There is a lot of work to be done to get a vaccine that really works and then a vaccine that can be identified. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), one cannot have international trade under OIE rules if one cannot identify a diseased animal and a vaccinated animal. The last thing I would do is cast aspersions on any scientists working on this question, as we all have a massive interest in arriving at a solution, but every time we look, it is at least 10 years away. According to the timetable Commissioner Borg has set us, we will do well if we stick to that 10 years.
Mr Paterson
I am going to push on.
That is another reason we plan to consult on a new draft TB eradication strategy for England over the coming months, which is mentioned in the amendment and will set out in some detail how we plan to reach our long-term goal of achieving officially bovine TB-free status for England. That will involve better diagnostic tests such as PCR—polymerase chain reaction—and targeted controls to bear down on the disease where it is at its worst, stop the spread across new areas and protect the relative disease freedom that large parts of the country already enjoy.
All those who take the problem seriously now accept that research in this country over the past 15 years has demonstrated that cattle and badgers transmit the disease to each other. There are few now who choose to argue that culling badgers, done carefully and correctly, cannot lead to a reduction of the disease in cattle.
In 1997, Lord Krebs and the independent scientific review group concluded that:
“The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. Most of this evidence is indirect, consisting of correlations rather than demonstrations of cause and effect; but in total the available evidence, including the effects of completely removing badgers from certain areas, is compelling.”
Since then, ongoing analysis of the results of the randomised badger culling trial has shown beyond reasonable doubt the important role that culling can play in checking the progress of bovine TB, despite any initial disruption to badger populations on the edge of the culled area. Professor Christl Donnelly, a former member of the ISG, wrote:
“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28 per cent lower than in ‘survey only’ areas and on lands up to 2 km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1 per cent lower than outside ‘survey only’ areas.”
I firmly believe, based on the best available evidence, that culling badgers to control TB can make a significant contribution to getting on top of this terrible disease. I have no doubt that the benefits from badger control will prove worth while to the businesses, farmers and communities that have suffered for too long. That is why it is crucial that the pilots go ahead.
The National Farmers Union has taken the lead on behalf of the farming industry and has planned and organised the pilot culls. It has been working tirelessly over the last few months to make them a success, ensuring all involved carry out their functions to a very high, professional standard and in ways that take full account of the need to protect public safety. I have been immensely impressed by the effort, commitment and determination that have been demonstrated by farmers in the two pilot areas, despite the unacceptable intimidation and hostility that some have endured.
The professionalism of the police, with whom we continue to work, also deserves praise. It is possible that some additional policing will be needed to enable peaceful protest during the pilots, and that may add to their costs. I hope it is not necessary for the police to deal with people who are intent on unlawful and threatening behaviour towards law-abiding and hard-working people. Such obstructive action cannot be allowed to prevent us from tackling the disease.
Opponents of the policy will say that it is possible to rid the country of bovine TB without tackling the problem in wildlife. There is no evidence for that in any other country where there is or has been a significant reservoir of the disease in species of wildlife that can pass it to cattle, as is unfortunately the case here. My experiences in Australia, Michigan, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland have absolutely reinforced that essential point.
Members might be told that we will fail because we do not have enough reliable estimates of badger numbers in the pilot areas. On the contrary, we have invested considerable time and effort in monitoring work to establish a reliable estimate of the number of badgers in the areas. Those figures were used by Natural England as part of the licensing process to set the minimum and maximum number of badgers to be culled. Members might also hear from some quarters that we are putting the badger population in those areas at risk of extinction. That too is untrue, as confirmed in the opinion of the Bern convention.
The two pilots will see the removal of about 5,000 badgers—a minimum of 2,081 in west Somerset and 2,856 in west Gloucestershire. That is about 10% of the 50,000 badgers killed on our roads each year or just over 1% of the estimated national population. The number of badgers culled and the culling method used in each case will be recorded by the operators and be part of the licence returns to Natural England. During the pilots, there will also be independent monitoring of the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of badger control.
I hope it is evident why the Government are committed to the policy. It is just one element of a comprehensive approach to the eradication of bovine TB, as our amendment to the motion makes clear, but it is an essential element and one that can help us start to win the war against a bacterium that has proved so damaging and resilient to other interventions.
We will not shy from tough decisions that we believe to be fully evidence-based and fundamentally the right thing to do. We will continue to work with all those who wish to see healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers. I therefore hope that Opposition Members will reconsider their position and support our amendment, which sets out the broad, balanced and evidence-based approach we are taking to tackle this horrible disease.
Nia Griffith
It is indeed difficult to make comparisons with other countries, where ecological patterns are very different. Perturbation has been mentioned by other speakers, so I will not go into great detail on that; instead, I want to talk about cattle vaccination, because that is what will put the farmer in control, and we should put a lot of effort into it. I am therefore saddened that whereas we spent £3.5 million on this in 2009-10, this Government have cut the funding for that sort of research to £2 million for the next financial year—
Mr Paterson
That is because there is no money, because you messed up the economy. [Interruption.]
Food Supply Networks
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I would like to announce to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have asked Professor Chris Elliott, of Queen’s University Belfast, to lead an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks in response to the vulnerabilities recently exposed by horsemeat fraud. I am pleased that he has accepted, subject to the necessary formalities being concluded with Queen’s University Belfast.
On 15 April 2013, Official Report, column 13WS, the House was informed that it was our intention to take forward a strategic review of the horsemeat incident and its implications for the food chain and regulatory framework. We have since concluded that the review should examine food supply networks more widely. We have therefore asked Professor Elliott to provide advice to me and my right hon. Friend on issues which impact upon consumer confidence in the authenticity of food products and any systemic failures in food supply networks which could have implications for food safety and public health. We expect him to make recommendations to support improvements in current systems and to improve consumer confidence.
The review will begin shortly and I anticipate it will take nine to 12 months to complete. My right hon. Friend and I have asked for interim advice in December and for a final report by spring 2014. We have also asked Professor Elliott to provide emerging findings on the European aspects of the review so that we can continue to influence action at a European level and effectively engage in the European Union process.
The reviewer will in due course issue a call for evidence seeking information and views on the integrity of the food supply network, any vulnerabilities and how assurances might be strengthened to support consumer confidence. Food fraud is completely unacceptable and consumers have every right to expect their food to be correctly described. In response to horsemeat fraud, investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK and Europe.
In April, the Board of the Food Standards Agency commissioned Professor Pat Troop to conduct an independent review of that organisation’s response to horsemeat fraud. Professor Troop will be reporting her emerging findings to the board of the Food Standards Agency at its open meeting later today. My right hon. Friend and I expect any strategic findings from the Pat Troop review to be considered in our joint review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks.
The terms of reference for the review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks are being placed in the House Library.
Balance of Competences
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I wish to inform the House that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and I have today published the call for evidence relating to the environment and climate change report as part of the balance of competences review.
This report, which will be completed by the end of 2013, will focus on the application and effect of the EU’s competence in relation to the environment and climate change. Much of the UK’s environment and climate change policy is now agreed at EU level, with comparatively few areas remaining exclusively within the competence of member states. One example of national competence is land use planning, although there are an increasing number of EU requirements affecting planning and development. All aspects of EU environment policy are potentially covered by this report including, but not limited to, air quality, water quality, nature protection, chemicals and waste.
The climate change aspects of the report will include international climate change negotiations, the reduction of collective EU member state greenhouse gas emissions via burden-sharing arrangements and the EU emissions trading system. It will not include renewable energy or energy efficiency, both of which will be discussed in the energy report, to be launched in the autumn.
The call for evidence period will be open for 12 weeks. My Department and the Department for Energy and Climate Change will draw together the evidence and policy analysis into a first draft which will subsequently go through a process of scrutiny before publication towards the end of 2013.
We will take a rigorous approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. The call for evidence sets out the scope of the report and includes a series of questions on which contributors are invited to focus. The evidence received—subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act—will be published alongside the final report and will be available on: www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
Our Departments will pursue an active engagement process, consulting with departmental select committees, the devolved Administrations, businesses and civil society in order to obtain evidence to contribute to our analysis of the issues. Our EU partners and the EU institutions will also be invited to contribute evidence to the review.
The resulting report is intended to be a comprehensive, thorough and detailed analysis of EU competence for environment and climate change and what this means for the UK. It will aid our understanding of the nature of our EU membership and will provide a constructive and serious contribution to the wider European debate about modernising, reforming and improving the EU. The report will not produce specific policy recommendations.
I am placing this document and the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be published on: www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of- competences.