Badger Culls (Assessment)

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that point, and I will be coming on to it.

As a consequence of not reaching the target of 5,000 badgers, the Government are likely to have made matters considerably worse because of perturbation, about which they were warned. DEFRA has not only failed in its own terms on effectiveness, but certainly failed on the test of humaneness as well. The independent expert panel, which the Government disbanded, as the hon. Lady said a moment ago, said about year one of the pilot badger cull:

“It is extremely likely that between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers that were shot at were still alive after 5 min, and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain. We are concerned at the potential for suffering that these figures imply.”

When it was clear that the cull was failing on every possible measure, the previous Secretary of State, unbelievably, blamed the badgers for “moving the goalposts”. In truth, the Government have moved the goalposts and Ministers are behaving like the three wise monkeys. The DEFRA independent expert panel confirmed last year that the cull was unsuccessful in terms of humaneness, as I have mentioned, and ineffective. The figures speak for themselves. The chief scientific adviser to Natural England also made negative comments about the cull, describing it as an “epic failure”.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. No one should be in any doubt that farming communities are suffering as a result of bovine tuberculosis, but is his case not simply that the evidence does not support this method of trying to eradicate bovine TB?

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his summary of the position. Of course bovine TB is a dreadful illness, but the way in which the Government have gone about tackling it is precisely the wrong thing to do and is likely to be making matters worse. I do not understand why they are ignoring the overwhelming scientific view that the badger cull should be abandoned and a different approach taken.

I was referring to the opinion of the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, who described the cull as an “epic failure”, and was about to ask, what did DEFRA do in response to such overwhelming criticism? It simply changed the methodology. That was described by one badger expert, Professor Woodroffe, as “very crude”. She went on to say that the Government targets

“are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data”,

and that

“with the data that is being collected, it will be impossible to know how effective this year’s culls have been.”

The Government did not like the conclusions of their independent expert panel, so they moved the goalposts again by disbanding it, but the new Secretary of State says that the outcome of the latest culls will determine whether there will be a roll-out across the rest of the country.

Bovine TB

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes two very pertinent comments. We wish the regime in Wales well, but it simply is not credible to attribute this reduction to the brief period of vaccination in 1.5% of the land area.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

The IEP report said that the cull trial was ineffective, that it did not reach its target and that it was inhumane. What would the Secretary of State’s definition of failure be?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a pessimistic interpretation of the IEP report. We are perfectly aware of the difficulty of achieving the numbers in the cull last year, but it was the first year. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that in the RBCT three areas achieved figures of 32%, 37% and 39%. They also got off to a slow start, but in later years they contributed to disease reduction. He wants a definition of success—it is reducing TB, and getting healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

Badger Cull

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in Devon, I am well aware of just how devastating bovine tuberculosis is in cattle. It is the area of the country that has been most affected by this terrible scourge over a number of years. I do not represent many farmers, but I have had farmers come to my advice surgery telling me about the devastation of their herd. I am acutely aware of the devastation that that causes to their families and to farming communities, and we are all united in wanting to do something about it.

The IEP report, much of which is on the web for hon. Members to see, clearly states that culling is not suitable for preventing the spread of bovine TB. Instead, we should stick to the agreement, made at the beginning of the coalition, to fully consider the scientific evidence available before deciding on the best way forward.

The IEP reported that the pilot cull has not met two of the three criteria. The culls have failed to be humane, as up to 18% of the badgers killed took longer than five minutes to die, and have failed to be effective, as less than 50% of the badgers were killed in either pilot area, far less than the target of 70% for the trial. The report shows that the recent badger culls did not work and suggests that they have had a negative effect by encouraging the spread of the disease through movement of badgers as badger populations are disrupted.

As the randomised badger culling trial, managed by the independent scientific group between 1998 and 2006, witnessed, after killing more than 12,000 badgers there was an initial decrease in the level of disease by approximately 23% in the centre of culled areas, but an increase of 29% on neighbouring land. By continuing with a badger cull we are in danger of worsening levels of infection, and therefore we must carefully consider the viable alternatives to a cull.

Evidence from Wales, as highlighted by other hon. Members, shows that in 2013 a programme of badger vaccination, stricter cattle testing and movement restrictions, resulted in a 24% fall in the number of herds with bovine TB, compared with England where they fell by only 3%. Those options are realistic alternatives to a badger cull to prevent the spread of bovine TB.

Testing regimes in England need to be improved. Currently, a significant proportion of infected cattle are missed, so there is still a great threat that the disease will spread whether or not we continue to cull badgers. As DEFRA has recognised, the single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test can miss up to approximately 20% of infected animals that are either in the early or late stages of the disease. By using this means of testing, it is possible that infected animals can be present in a herd when movement restrictions are lifted and the officially tuberculosis-free status regained, even though herds may be infected.

Between the late 1980s and 2005, various changes to the testing regime led to a re-establishment of the disease due to major reductions in testing intensity, relaxation in movement controls, and a move to two, three and four-yearly testing, which fails effectively to identify and isolate cases of the disease. The testing regime can have an important effect on the level of bovine TB in cattle. For instance, after moving to annual testing in 2008, Wales has nearly halved the number of cattle slaughtered per annum since 2009. Without such a regime we run the risk of jeopardising any further work to reduce bovine TB. Beyond this, a better testing regime can be supplemented by improving methods of biosecurity, which includes area-to-area cattle movement controls and annual checks, as well as preventive vaccinations.

Attempts in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s to reduce the levels of the disease through a process of rigorous area-by-area cattle movement controls and annual testing decreased levels of bovine TB to 0.01%. Those alternatives had a dramatic effect on the number of livestock slaughtered, which decreased from 25,000 in 1950 to 2,081 in 1970, without resorting to the slaughter of wildlife. The research of the Central Science Laboratory further concluded that suggested biosecurity exclusion methods could be up to 100% effective if used by farmers to prevent the transmission of bovine TB from badgers to cattle.

It seems peculiar that we could be paying to cull badgers, which causes an increase in the spread of bovine TB, before we have ensured that the biosecurity resources, which could only have a positive effect, are sufficient. That option is particularly appealing as DEFRA data suggest that the average cost of improving biosecurity for farmers is about £4,000. Considering the fact that the average cost of dealing with a TB herd breakdown in Great Britain is about £27,000, such measures would appear cost-effective when compared with the cost of a cull, which DEFRA estimates at £4.56 million a cull with an extra policing cost of £500,000 per area per year.

The cull is not the financially viable option and although it has been argued that vaccination options are too expensive to be efficient, that is not true. In fact, DEFRA has estimated the cost of vaccinating badgers at £2,250 per sq km a year whereas the cost of policing the first two badger culls was roughly £4,400 per sq km. Vaccination is cheaper because there is no need to dispose of carcases, it is unlikely to require as much policing and wildlife organisations have hundreds of volunteers who can be used as a resource to help with its administration.

Over the past 10 years, DEFRA has spent £10 million on research into badger vaccines and it appears a great waste of taxpayers’ money for the Government to drop that potential alternative. More than 1,200 badgers have so far been vaccinated in Gloucester and the Welsh Assembly Government continue to pursue a vaccination policy for their intensive action area in and around Pembrokeshire, the cost of which is estimated at £662 a badger. Although that cost is high, it is considerably lower than the estimates for the cost of the pilot culls on a per badger basis, so the UK Government should be considering the option seriously. The alternatives exist and are a realistic option to prevent the transmission of bovine TB.

In conclusion, as the IEP report has shown, culling is ineffective and inhumane. It appears completely wrong to jeopardise the welfare of badgers and taxpayers’ money when cheaper options are available to prevent this terrible TB infection in cattle.

Sentencing Tariffs (Offences Against Animals)

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Weir. I am delighted to see the new Minister here. It is wonderful that a fellow west country Member of Parliament —the real west country: Devon and Cornwall—is in a ministerial position.

Animal baiting and fighting legislation was first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1835. Yet more than 175 years later, these most barbaric and cruel activities remain alarmingly prevalent. Despite dozens of individuals being prosecuted every year, acts of animal cruelty continue to a horrific extent. Additionally, the practice is associated with other criminality, such as drug dealing and firearms sales.

We in England and the United Kingdom cherish our pets. The fact that dogfighting still occurs today would astonish most people. A lot of people describe dog and cockfighting as sports, but there is nothing sporting in watching two dogs being made to tear each other apart. Sadly, examples of such barbaric animal cruelty are still too numerous in our society. It is astonishing that people still cause untold suffering to animals in this way. There have been all too many examples of the practice over the past few years.

Last year, in Derbyshire, a mutilated puppy was found by rescuers from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The dog, a west highland terrier cross, was found in a filthy, mangled state, abandoned in a box dumped in a country lane. Half of both his ears had been cut off and he was riddled with fleas. Cutting ears off is apparently a standard procedure for dogfighting, as they can be bitten by other dogs during a fight. To make dogs last longer in the pit, the ears are cut off by the gangs beforehand. It can also be done to make the dog look more aggressive. It would have been excruciating for this terrier, done by an unprofessional person with no anaesthetic. The dog was still terrified when found by its rescuers; he flinched whenever vets went near his ears, so he obviously associates them with pain.

The RSPCA said that the terrier was probably an abandoned or unwanted pet and added that many such pets end up in dogfighting pits. Often, families struggling to make ends meet can no longer cope with paying for pets, which oftentimes are left on the streets. There has been an increase in strays. The RSPCA warned that these pets can be picked up by dogfighting gangs.

One such gang was broken up in Oxfordshire in 2011, when a father and son admitted to training dogs for organised fights. They were jailed and banned from keeping dogs, following a major RSPCA investigation. The father admitted using equipment such as treadmills, weighted collars and rudimentary veterinary equipment to train the dogs. RSPCA inspectors discovered an emaciated bull terrier, as well as shocking footage of dogfighting, when they searched his home.

In March last year, another gang was broken up, following another covert operation by the RSPCA. It was found goading animals into fighting, as well as training dogs. Those convicted received 20-week custodial sentences.

It is welcome that these people are being brought to justice. The sentences they receive send a clear message to others involved in dogfighting or thinking of taking part. Sadly, these individuals are not the first people to be sent away for the brutal practice and they will not be the last. Furthermore, dogfighting is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ongoing animal cruelty.

In a cockfight, two roosters fight each other to the death, watched by people placing bets on the victor. If the birds survive, the organisers let them suffer untreated injuries or throw them away. They lie dead or dying in heaps. Left to themselves, roosters almost never hurt each other badly. However, in cockfights the birds often wear razor-sharp blades on their legs and get injuries such as punctured lungs, broken bones and pierced eyes, even when they survive.

Last October, a father and son were convicted of taking part in such a sick competition. RSPCA inspectors raided their homes and found evidence that they were at the heart of a global network of cockfighting. Together, they owned 484 birds bred for fighting, including 97 mature fighting cocks, and a cock-fighting pit. There were magazines and photographs, too, as well as evidence that the pair had travelled as far as South America to watch cockfights.

The RSPCA called the scene a “cockfighting factory”. It found more than 60 pairs of spurs, which are attached to birds’ feet to increase the damage inflicted, together with leg muffs, leg bands, beak muzzles and other blood-splattered veterinary items. Indeed, the pair were internationally renowned for their brutal practice. The father had featured on the front cover of an Asian cockfighting magazine. They exported the birds for fighting to Brazil, the Philippines and France, among other countries. Their birds had been fed with steroids to increase strength and stamina. Both men were given suspended sentences, large fines and community service, thanks to the RSPCA’s efforts. The question is, is that enough?

I highlight those cases to bring home the fact that animal cruelty in its most brutal form continues to plague our society and occurs even in this country. The most recent legislation on animal welfare is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It was a welcome updating of the law on animals’ well-being, much of which was almost 100 years old. It simplified the legislation for enforcers and animal keepers by consolidating more than 20 pieces of legislation into one and eliminated many loopholes in the system.

The 2006 Act also ensured that people who organise animal fights, train animals for fights or publicise or record a fight, face the full force of the law. It sought to strengthen deterrence for persistent offenders by increasing penalties. For example, those causing unnecessary suffering to an animal could face up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine of up to £20,000, or both.

Despite that welcome legislation, the reports I mentioned show that more must be done to deter gangs who are organising these brutal blood sports. An already stretched RSPCA can only do so much to find the gangs carrying out these acts. It only has so many resources to pursue them through the courts. This is why we need to send a strong signal to individuals who may be, in any way, involved in the organisation of any sort of animal fighting, wrestling or baiting.

I suggest that penalties be doubled, allowing for custodial sentences of up to two years for particularly egregious cases of animal cruelty. That would send out a powerful signal to those engaged, or considering becoming engaged, in this brutal competition. It would give judges the necessary leeway to impose sentences they felt were appropriate to the crimes involved and ensure that people such as those I have mentioned faced the full force of the law and paid for their criminal brutality.

We are at something of a disadvantage in that the provisions for tougher sentences in the 2006 Act were never enacted. Will the Minister explain why? The most someone is likely to get, even for serious cases of animal cruelty, is a six-month sentence; in reality, they will probably only serve eight weeks.

Finally, I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the RSPCA. Every year, it rescues and collects almost 120,000 animals. It finds new homes for about 60,000 of them. Another 60,000 animals are microchipped, helping them to stay safe. Ever since it was founded in 1824, the RSPCA has been a voice for animals throughout Britain. Despite facing countless difficulties in this time, it has always stayed true to its central charitable mission—namely,

“by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of all animals”.

It is a charity that cares for all our animals, whether pets or companions, on farms or in laboratories.

Last year, the RSPCA secured more than 3,000 convictions by private prosecution. Its internal investigations unit looked into more than 160,000 complaints of alleged cruelty. It is especially worthwhile to highlight the work of the RSPCA at a time when donations are falling. The proportion of people giving to charity fell from 58% to 55% in 2011, according to the Charities Aid Foundation, and it is expected to have fallen again in 2012. As we all struggle with austerity, so do charities.

It is vital that we continue to support the work of charities such as the RSPCA, and any other animal welfare organisation, at this time. All the while, their workers and volunteers continue their efforts to ensure that vulnerable pets and animals receive the care they deserve. The examples of dog and cockfighting that I have raised today are proof that their work is much needed.

Animal cruelty in its worst form continues to take place in Britain. If we really cherish our pets in Britain, we should have an appropriate legislative framework to protect their well-being. We must give judges the power to punish the most egregious acts of animal brutality, and the measures I propose would do just that. The Government need to conduct a thorough review of sentences for issues beyond—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Sanders]

As I was saying before the rug was pulled out from under my peroration, we must give judges the power to punish the most egregious acts of animal brutality. The measures that I have mentioned will, I hope, do just that. The Government need to conduct a thorough review of sentences for issues beyond just dog control. We should have the data, so that we can see how effective the 2006 Act is and whether more needs to be done.

I would be interested to know what objection the Government might have for not undertaking such a review. The Minister’s time to respond is limited, but I hope he can meet me and the RSPCA to discuss the issues in more detail. An increase in the maximum penalties, fines and jail sentences faced by those who are caught will signal that this country is no place for such barbarity. We might finally banish their cruelty from our society, once and for all. I think that we can all look forward to that.

Marine Conservation Zones

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate and on the careful way that he presented the case for his constituency.

I want to make three brief points. First, fishermen are not the only stakeholders in this. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that fishermen should be more involved in the process, their views are not the only ones that the Government have to take into consideration.

Secondly, marine conservation zones work, and that is proved by the marine protection areas that have been extremely successful on the west coast of north America. There is also some evidence of the success of marine conservation zones around Arran and the Isle of Man in Europe.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sanders]

I will, although I do not have much more to say.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of research commissioned by the recreational anglers? It shows that fishing interests are not always allied. Sometimes the commercial fishing sector can be in conflict with the recreational sector, and the recreational sector, in many parts of the country, brings more income in to those local communities.

[Mr Sanders]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There are also divers and other people using the seas who contribute financially to the economies of the local areas concerned.

My third and final point—I hope that the Minister will refer to this—is the fact that we have to judge marine conservation zones as a whole, not individually. The network is crucial to their success. By altering one, we perhaps diminish the potential success of the concept as a whole.

Flooding

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was in his city on Friday evening at a dinner for one of his parliamentary neighbours and discussed the issue with people who may have been constituents of his. He is right that we have to work through this negotiation and get a good deal on insurance that is satisfactory to all parties.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

In addition to those that the Secretary of State has already praised, will he mention South West Water, the transport companies, which have done a great job today, and, crucially, the local media? Will he also address the public concerns in Devon about the resilience of our infrastructure, particularly Cowley bridge, which controls rail in and out of the county to Paddington, the Clennon valley pumping station in my constituency, which deals with most of the sewerage in Torbay, and roads throughout Devon that were cut off from the rest of Devon at some point over the weekend?

[Mr Paterson]

I went to Cowley bridge to look at the damage to the railway line and I am pleased to say that it will be mended by tomorrow, which will be a triumph for those involved, because I was told that something like 200 tonnes of aggregate had shifted. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise a number of detailed issues, and they will have to be worked through by local councils and agencies. I was impressed by the resilience of all those affected by events in recent days and I have every confidence that they will see their way through this situation.

Badger Cull

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

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

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

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

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

[Mr Sanders]

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

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

[Mr Gray]

What’s that got to do with it?

[Mr Sanders]

It has a lot to do with it, frankly. Killing animals that do not carry the disease is simply wrong.

There is a significant body of scientific evidence on the efficacy of culling, both supporting and rejecting the idea. The majority conclusion, however, is that a cull could be not only ineffective, but potentially counter-productive in controlling the disease, by increasing the number of infected badgers and cattle through the perturbation effect. That was highlighted by the research carried out by the independent scientific group in the randomised badger culling trial, which published its results in 2007 and warned against the results of badger culls. Dr Rosie Woodroffe, who was referred to earlier, is a former member of the ISG on cattle TB. She said earlier this month that

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

As the Government have now admitted, there is also great unpredictability surrounding the logistical element of the cull. Using so-called shooting, it is unknown how many badgers will be destroyed or whether the shooters will have managed to fulfil their quota. The longer-term consequences on local ecosystems—such as an increase in fox populations—are not entirely foreseeable. The cost of the cull seems to be increasingly complex, but there is a general consensus that it is a bad deal for taxpayers.

As Professor McInerney, emeritus professor of agricultural policy at the university of Exeter—right in the heart of the worst bovine TB-affected area—said,

“You pay about £1.5 million to get the disease avoidance worth about £900,000.”

It seems that not enough research has been done into the most cost-effective way to carry out a cull, but also that spending money on an ineffective cull would be a disastrous step in the battle to control TB. If the Government were to redirect those resources into further research and the development of alternative options, such as a vaccination, they would get far better value for taxpayers.

Let me turn to public opinion. It is obvious to most that the vast majority of the public are against the cull, as is evident from the e-petition. The Government seem to have lost sight of public interest and have developed the cull, which seems to be attractive only to understandably desperate farmers. It seems unfair to present those farmers with a quick fix that has no hope of a sustainable or successful future and to entice them with it. The responsible thing to do would be to back down from the cull altogether and explore the alternatives, to which I will now turn.

Of course, vaccinating cattle is the obvious solution to the problem. However, until we can develop a test that can distinguish between vaccinated and infected cattle, there is no hope of getting EU law changed, although some people contend that there has been a major breakthrough even in this area—an argument that others will no doubt pick up. In the meantime, we could start a badger vaccination programme. We have been vaccinating badgers since 2010, and there have been positive results. Research published by Dr Mark Chambers in 2010, using evidence gained in a field trial, showed a 73.8% reduction in positive serological test results in badgers. Just as in humans, when enough of the population is vaccinated, prevalence of the disease reduces.

According to the Gloucestershire wildlife trust, vaccinating badgers costs £51 per hectare, but that cost could be lowered. Getting groups to combine their operations with nearby areas and to share fridges, traps and other costly items drastically cuts the costs, making vaccination not only a more ethical option, but cheaper than culling. The money saved from not carrying out the cull should be used to fund the development of an oral vaccine for badgers. We know that oral vaccination is a much more practical solution, and the sooner one is developed, the better.

The Welsh Government’s TB eradication programme is something that we should monitor closely and consider adopting for England. The programme has combined badger vaccination with stricter cattle controls and improved biosecurity and has had some success.

[Andrew George]

On top of the efforts that my hon. Friend is talking about and the science, which should be taken into consideration, the recent results of research commissioned by DEFRA and headed by Dr Andrew Conlan at Cambridge university showed that one in five of the herds that had been given the all-clear on bovine TB were actually still harbouring the disease. We should be concentrating a great deal of effort in that area as well.

[Mr Sanders]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to that research, of which I was not aware.

The Welsh Assembly Government have been offering biosecurity advice to farmers within the intensive action area, and the Government should be doing the same in Devon and other heavily affected areas. It is an easy and relatively cheap way to ensure that farmers have the knowledge and guidance that they need to limit the spread of bovine TB. That of course will not solve the problem overnight, but better farming practices and a general build-up of immunity in the badger population will slowly lead to a much lower rate of TB infection.

As someone lucky enough to have been born and grown up in the county of Devonshire, it is now my privilege and honour to represent a constituency in the county. No one from the west country is unaware of the issue, and what unites us across the south-west, as I hope it does in the House, is a desire to find a workable solution to this appalling plague on our cattle, our wildlife and the lives of our wonderful farmers and the communities in which they live. But a cull is not it.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

That used to be the province of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps saying two different things, depending on whether one is at the top or the bottom of the hill, in the House or in one’s constituency, is contagious. We should all take the necessary precautions, but such indiscipline would never have been allowed when I was a Government assistant Whip.

There remain, however, a number of hurdles to clear, not least that of the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who has an effective veto over the tunnel, so DEFRA support alone will be insufficient. We see the tunnel, in addition to its environmental benefit, as an opportunity to create up to 4,000 direct jobs for Londoners, to expand apprenticeships and to regenerate London. With the provision of financial assistance, we expect not just those apprenticeships but higher-level training to be a non-negotiable part of the deal.

In an infrastructure project of this scale, complexity and duration, we should be setting targets not just for apprentices but for the number of young people who will achieve masters-level civil engineering qualifications over the project’s lifetime, as well as encouraging local and national procurement to secure growth and the economic recovery in London.

No impact assessment has been produced alongside the Bill. The rather short explanatory memorandum states that this is because the Bill is associated with public expenditure, but clearly there will be burdens on water companies when administering any schemes under clauses 1 and 2, so what conditions will South West Water have to fulfil? Presumably, there will be an audit process, so what will the company’s administrative costs be, or has it agreed to waive them?

Of more concern, however, is the fact that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill to require potentially large sums of taxpayers’ money to be spent transparently and accountably. Clauses 1 and 2 state that undefined “terms and conditions” can be attached to the use of public money, but that falls well short of making clear exactly what will happen, and we believe that certain safeguards should be specified in the Bill.

I had a little look at the Water Industry Act 1991 this morning, and section 152 states that the Government can pay out money to water firms only

“in the interests of national security.”

So it is clear that infrastructure projects of the scale and cost of the one before us were simply not envisaged at the time of privatisation.

Today’s Bill shows those limitations, and section 154 of the 1991 Act also states very clearly that if any financial assistance or guarantee is given,

“the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament”

and

“as soon as possible after the end of each financial year…lay before each House of Parliament a statement relating to that sum.”

The right hon. Lady says that the subsidy to South West Water will continue until the end of the next comprehensive spending review period, but that again is not in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum, and we want to see those things guaranteed.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady commit her party, should it ever return to power, to continue the £50 discount each year?

[Mary Creagh]

We have to look at the cost of water bills in the round—the average, unmetered cost of water bills. We want to bring them down throughout the country, but we are not sure what sort of economy we will inherit, so I shall not make any election promises today.

We will seek to amend the Bill in Committee so that the Government are required to seek further parliamentary approval for such payments through the laying of a statutory instrument. That power should be triggered after a sober assessment of the facts, and after the Secretary of State has made her case to the House.

The explanatory memorandum is silent on state aid. Is the Bill compatible with EU state aid rules? Has the Environment Secretary discussed the matter with the European Commission? [Interruption.] Okay. So water customers do not run any risk of having to repay the assistance at a later date. That is a relief.

In conclusion, despite the right hon. Lady’s warm words, this “financial assistance” Bill is poorly named. It extends no financial assistance to anyone except those living in the south-west. It is an orphan Bill, conceived in haste, which is silent on the wider affordability issues, and it ignores the cost-of-living crisis for households hit by this Government’s assault on the squeezed middle.

We recognise that privatised water has brought benefits, with £90 billion invested in our infrastructure at no direct cost to the taxpayer, and we believe that water should remain a properly regulated private industry. Today, however, is a day for thinking about the water customer. Since privatisation, customers’ bills have increased year on year, wherever they live. Many have found themselves adjusting to metered water, and by 2015 there will for the first time be more metered customers than unmetered ones. Climate change will mean more regions being under greater water stress, with consequences for customers’ water use. That is why it is down to us to hammer out a new consensus on water affordability. I ask Ministers to work with us to amend the Bill and help hard-pressed families.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I have not had the experience before, but it is certainly a pleasure.

Today, I am raising a matter that is of great concern to the people of Devon and Cornwall and has been for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament, and I suspect for longer than any of us here today have represented our local communities. I had the pleasure of raising this issue in an Adjournment debate previously, but this is the first time that I have been able to do so as a Member of Parliament on the Government side of the House. The fact that the problem has remained almost exactly the same for so long is both a reflection of the intractable nature of the issues involved and a sad reflection on the record of previous Administrations. They had time to tackle this injustice, but sadly they were unable to come up with a solution. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is here today will not let our Government follow the same path.

Of course, the problem is the disproportionately high water bills in the south-west. Although the new Ofwat settlement has only just been released, the indication is that the average bill in the region will be £517 a year and the price rise will be about 8.1%. Rather mischievously, Ofwat had initially told the press and the public that the rise would be only about 5%, but that forecast assumed that customers would adapt their behaviour in the future. It is accepted that more people will move to using water meters. Around 70% of water customers in the south-west already have one and Anna Walker predicted that that figure would rise to 80% by 2015. Moving to water meters would save those south-west customers around £400 per year, but the money still has to be found from somewhere. Metered bills will rise in response to the dwindling supply of high-paying unmetered customers, adding more than £200 to the bills of metered customers.

Metering and in-region social tariffs have long been identified by Ofwat and the Government as an easy solution, but they do not have an impact on the underlying problem. Even if one takes the price rise as a 5% average, that is still far too high for most people to cope with in this age of austerity. It is also important to remember that I am talking about average bills. Many of my constituents now face water bills far in excess of £1,000. That reflects a range of circumstances, from medical conditions that require extra water to simply having a larger family. As always, unmetered customers suffer the worst. The average bill of £517 in the south-west compares starkly with the average bill in London, for example, which even for unmetered customers is only £332 per year.

The privatisation of utilities was meant to open up sectors to competition and to empower consumers, but the privatisation of water has done nothing of the sort. Can one imagine the outcry if electricity prices were 60% higher in Newcastle than they are in London? Any electricity company that tried to implement such price disparities would simply see its regional market share evaporate.

Hopefully, we are all aware of the background to this problem. The privatisation of water in the late 1980s left South West Water with a backlog of infrastructure improvements to invest in. Combined with a tiny customer base and a lengthy coastline, that backlog meant that under the system of regional monopolies South West Water customers would pay higher bills in perpetuity, with their only recourse being to move somewhere else in the UK.

For all its inaction, the previous Government at least recognised the problem. The result is Anna Walker’s report on water charging, chapter 14 of which focuses specifically on the south-west. The coalition is about to respond to her report, which again makes this debate timely.

I want to cover briefly three points that are relevant to what is happening now and hopefully the Minister can take them into account when he is developing the final policy on this issue. First, the role of Ofwat needs to be assessed very closely. Ofwat’s role as the regulator must be to protect customers and as Regina Finn, its chief executive, said herself:

“People can shop around for the best deal on many things, but not water. Our job is to do this for them.”

I am afraid that the overwhelming view of my constituents is that that “job” is not being done. Many of them see Ofwat as hindering rather than helping the situation in the south-west. Whereas bills fell slightly ahead of inflation in other areas, the south-west has seen the very large rise that I described.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is not the real scandal of this year’s price increase that customers were assured at the time of the last price review under the Labour Government that there would be reductions in their water bills in this price period? South West Water is hiding behind the current Government’s failure to control inflation. That is a sign of gross insensitivity compared with the situation in, say, local authorities, where everybody else is having their pay frozen.

[Mr Sanders]

I only half-share the right hon. Gentleman’s view, because Ofwat is the body that should protect the consumer and it has allowed South West Water to raise charges by the amounts that I described.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment that Ofwat’s role in this regard is key, although I also accept the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I have just received an e-mail from one of my constituents that makes exactly the same point as the hon. Gentleman. My constituent says that he lives in a three-bedroom house; there are two residents, and he has received a bill for more than £1,000 for the coming year. Ofwat has agreed these prices. My constituent’s question is, “Do they realise just how much individual customers are having to pay and the impact on those households?” I urge the Minister to look again—please—at the role of Ofwat in all this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sanders]

Indeed. I would rather like Regina Finn to spend perhaps a year in the south-west on average wages. If that were to happen, I think that we would see a change in Ofwat’s policy.

I also question the use of the retail prices index in setting price rises. Although Ofwat technically enforces price ceilings, it is de facto setting prices. We are moving to a system of uprating pensions and benefits by the consumer prices index. We should do that for water bills too, at least to make the price rise somewhat defensible.

On the wider issue, however, Ofwat has consistently failed to engage with the real problems highlighted in Anna Walker’s review. At the moment, Ofwat does not seem to be interested in finding a resolution to the south-west problem and so it cannot be seen to be standing up for south-west customers. When it comes to the protection of consumers’ interests in the south-west, Ofwat is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

In our discussions with Ofwat, its representatives have told us that solving this problem would be complicated and that we should focus on a social tariff instead, which is where Ofwat is investing its time and energy. Curiously enough, the official line is that Ofwat took that decision unilaterally. Parliamentary answers revealed that neither the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs nor the Treasury gave any instructions or guidance and that Ofwat has not even written down a plan of its work for reviewing Walker. All we have had is a vague indication from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who was the Minister with responsibility for water in the previous Government, that Ofwat should look into reviewing Walker.

The plot thickens, however. When I submitted a freedom of information request on this issue, it emerged that the Treasury briefed Ofwat on what it wanted Ofwat to achieve in its work, but as yet, exactly what that entails has not been disclosed. Perhaps I have been unfair to Ofwat in that the Government are the reason why it is useless at protecting South West Water customers. Maybe the Minister will reveal the truth.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

One of the reasons why Ofwat might not be particularly effective in protecting South West Water customers is that when water was privatised, a risk-free money-making system was effectively created. When somebody has a monopoly on services such as water and sewerage services, that is bound to happen. However, the problem in the south-west is that there is a national asset—the beaches—that has to be cleared up and cleaned up at great expense by a very small part of the population. The south-west has 30% of the national beaches, but only 3% of the national population. Of course, if we compare that with the National Gallery or the British Museum, which are funded from national taxation, we in the south-west have to protect a national asset on the basis of having only 3% of the population. That is simply unsustainable.

[Mr Sanders]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I made that same point in a Radio Cornwall interview not an hour ago. It is amazing that that station can be picked up so far away.

My main point is that the development of a solution is fundamentally undemocratic and beyond scrutiny. Deciding which combination of Walker’s recommendations to implement should be down to the political will of Ministers and the Government. It should be for them to take the courageous decision to put an end to this injustice or suffer the political consequences. The solution should not be watered down—excuse the pun—by quangos and officials who have no inherent interest in standing up for water customers, especially not those in the far south-west. Ofwat claims that a levy on other water company areas to bring down bills in the south-west, or to equalise bills across the country, would breach Treasury rules, and it is not keen to explore changing those rules, but the nationwide social tariff suffers from that very same problem, because it involves moving money around between water customers, outside the Government’s coffers.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue over a great number of years, and I congratulate him on securing the debate.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is perhaps a misapprehension among some people that the south-west is a wealthy part of the country, and that that somehow informs the view that costs could not be shared across the country? There is an idea that many wealthy people are sitting down on huge estates in the south-west and being subsidised by poorer people in urban areas elsewhere when, in fact, areas such as Cornwall are some of the most deprived—there are very low incomes there. That is what ought to inform the decision about a more equitable way forward.

[Mr Sanders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency of Torbay, the unitary authority area now has a gross value added level lower than Cornwall’s was when it qualified for objective 1 assistance, and there are other such pockets in the south-west.

[Alison Seabeck]

I would like to reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point. Does he not agree that, with the current increase in water rates, we will see more pensioners, particularly in the area around Torbay and in my constituency of Plymouth Moor View, falling back down below the poverty line? The Government would not want to see that happen, but undoubtedly they will.

[Mr Sanders]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that point.

If Ofwat is not supportive, we at least have political unity around the idea that something more than a social tariff and something specific to the south-west needs to be done, and I need only consult the Hansard report from a previous debate on this very issue, in January 2010, to see that. In that debate, we had the support of the then Labour Members for Plymouth and some warm words from the then Minister with responsibility for water, the hon. Member for Ogmore. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is now one of the Prime Minister’s chief aides, stated that

“there seems to be a strong case for some kind of spreading of cost”—[Official Report, 27 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 323WH.]

The Liberal Democrats have, of course, championed the cause for many years. I see that I am joined today by Members from all parties, who are united in wanting to get something done for their long-suffering constituents, and I hope that many of them will be able to contribute later in the debate.

The overarching problem, which Walker ably demonstrates, stems from privatisation. On privatisation, South West Water had the smallest asset base—what was called the regulatory capital value—per customer, and it now has the highest, at 210%. South West Water customers will therefore pay far more for longer. If that situation were to occur in any other utility it would be outrageous, but for some reason successive Governments have tolerated it in the water industry. The previous Government sadly never understood the damage caused by the failed privatisation. I describe it as failed not because the water companies have not provided a good service—on the whole they have—but because it has simply not delivered a market, not even a heavily regulated one. No domestic consumer can choose between water companies, and instead of being reinvested fully in the service, the surplus created is converted into profit for shareholders. The water customers in the south-west do not like that, and I suspect that if it happened to other regions they would not like it either.

That brings me to some potential hope in this doom and gloom. We have a new Government. We are in the era of new politics, and appear to have a listening Government, and so I invite the Minister to join in this spirit of new politics and listen to the people of the south-west. If he spoke to them, they would tell him that they do not want just a social tariff or some adjustments around the edges, but a fair and transparent system, whereby they pay the same as everyone else in the UK for the water and sewerage services they use.

The Minister’s party was in power at the time, so he might not join me in wishing that privatisation had never happened in this industry, but I hope that he will acknowledge that it was carried out in a wrong-headed way. The company in the south-west needed a much bigger customer base, and needed to be compensated for the poor state of its infrastructure. If the Minister does join me in this, I hope that he can take the next logical step and support something that addresses these historical problems and lifts the unfairness. I particularly mention unfairness because it is important not to conflate it with affordability, and it would be very foolish if the Government pretended that addressing the problem of water poverty also solved that of unfairness. I shall give an example to illustrate the problem. A family earning £35,000 would never come under the scope of WaterSure or any improved social tariff. They would, however, feel incredibly aggrieved if they had to pay anything up to £400 more for exactly the same service and product than if they lived anywhere else in the country, and that insult is made worse by the fact that the service is a basic necessity.

I understand, however, the Minister’s difficulty in being able to give concrete answers to many of the questions that will be raised today. There will necessarily be input from the Treasury as well as from No. 10, and in a way it is a shame that we cannot have Ministers from both Departments—the Treasury and DEFRA—here today, as some might argue that the solution is to be found at the Treasury. The Treasury can make or break another Department’s plans, but I hope that the Minister is pushing the case both for a social tariff and, more importantly, a solution to the south-west injustice.

Overall, we know the problem. Water bills for all customers in the south-west are far too high, as a result of the way in which the industry was privatised. We need a structural solution, through Government intervention, to remedy that unfairness. I am not sure how much detail the Minister can give in response, but I want him to recognise the difference between addressing water poverty and addressing unfairness. I hope that he can restore, or shall we say maintain, my faith, and that of others, in this Government, by promising to address both those issues.

[Alison Seabeck]

On a point of order, Mr Amess. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I should draw Members’ attention to an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), in whom I have an indirect interest: he is my partner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am sure that her interest is in something far more glamorous than the adoption of private sewers. I have raised the matter with the Minister and there has been consultation on it. Water companies are aware of the issue and some have undertaken their own calculations of the impact that it might have. I am confused and uncertain about how far down the water companies will have to go—it is possible to get stuck on these issues due to the number of metaphors that could be adopted in relation to them, but I shall not dwell on that for too long—before they take on those obligations. Other issues include the state in which those sewers would have to be in order for them to be fit to be adopted and, indeed, whether the companies will have the opportunity to assess the condition of those drains and sewers in the first place.

The information that appears to be coming from the marketplace and from those who are engaged in the industry is that both the previous and present Governments have not properly assessed the true impact that the proposal is likely to have. The knock-on effect will be on all customers—not only in the south-west, but countrywide—although it will be disproportionately worse for those in the south-west, because any increase in their bills will be on top of something that is already extortionately high. I know that the Minister is looking into the issue. The matter clearly needs to be resolved before we go down the track of finally forcing water companies to adopt private sewers and drains. I hope that the Minister will address the issue in his comments.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has left the Chamber, but she raised the issue of fairness. When we have debated how we can address the legacy of unfairness that has been left to South West Water customers, we have talked about the potential adoption of a national levy, which is one of the options proposed by the Anna Walker review. A national levy would be a very small, gnat bite of a charge, which few people would notice and which would address some of the inherited legacy of additional unfairness in the south-west and other parts of the country. However, if we adopted such a levy, and if it were simply a flat rate charge for all water rate payers, poor water rate payers in one part of the country—the north-east, for example—might end up subsidising wealthy second home owners, who already pay, if they have water meters, significantly less than most people in their locality. Clearly, to address the issue of fairness, if we were to adopt a national solution, it would have to be significantly more sophisticated than a simple, flat-rate solution. I know that the Minister is well aware of the issues.

[Mr Sanders]

It is worth putting on the record the amount that would be asked of each customer. It is in the Walker review. It is £1.50 per customer per year.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he has the figure to hand, but I do not. As I have said, it is an imperceptible gnat bite of 3p per week throughout the year. It is not a significant charge for people, and the potential benefits to this country’s water rate payers, such as those in the south-west, who are significantly disadvantaged, would be considerable.

Finally, I have emphasised the benefits to water rate payers if they, in most cases, adopt a water meter. Many of those living in houses in multiple occupation, sheltered housing and so on are not able to install a meter in their own individual property. When they query that and ask South West Water how, given the unfairness of the system—particularly if they are elderly, do not use a lot of water and live n their own—they might reduce their bills and the exorbitant charges that they have to endure, they are told that they have a range of alternative options, one of which is to return to South West Water, which is obliged to offer them an assessed charge, which assesses their notional water usage and charges them on the basis of what they would have been levied had they had a water meter.

In all such cases with which I have dealt over the years, those charges have usually reduced bills by half or more. My point to the Minister is that, rather than expecting water rate payers—particularly those living in sheltered accommodation who do not have assessed charges—to believe that there might be an alternative solution and to then be articulate and confident enough to approach the company to ask for one to reduce their charges, it should be the company’s default position to make those customers aware of the availability of an assessed charge. Many vulnerable people live on their own in sheltered accommodation without the benefit of reduced charges on water meters, but they could at least be given the opportunity of an assessed charge. That is what the company should be doing in the first place.

I have run South West Water down something rotten this afternoon, and to be fair, the chief executive, Christopher Loughlin, is fully engaged with these issues. When I raised the issue of assessed charges, he accepted that the company can be much more on the front foot and assured me that it wants to tackle the issue. He is conscious of the impact on his customers of issues such as the fairness of billing and the charges levied by South West Water, and he is fully behind the campaign by Members from all parties. The company is aware of these issues and would welcome any solution that, while not giving it any particular benefit, would reassure its customers that arrangements can be put in place that are more equitable than those they have had to endure for the past 20 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Sanders Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady was not listening clearly last night. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances in this House that access and other public benefits will be protected. However, many of the pieces of land that fit the criteria the Forestry Commission has set out do not have access attached to them at present. She should reflect carefully on our public consultation document and gain a better understanding of what happened when Rigg wood was sold off under the conditions set by her party’s Government in their contract: without protection, access is now denied.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking to reduce the volume of international trade in ivory.

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

The UK supports the global ban on the international trade in raw ivory imposed in 1989. While occasional one-off sales have been permitted in the past, we are working to ensure that no further sales of ivory take place without firm evidence that such sales will reduce poaching. In the UK, we employ stricter domestic measures than those required under the convention on international trade in endangered species concerning the trade in ivory.

[Mr Sanders]

I think the Government are doing a good job, building on the work of the previous Government, but there is still a great deal of concern that we are not tackling where the exchange takes place: on the internet. Do the Government have any plans to try to stop the sale of ivory through internet transactions?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is right to point to that development in the illegal trade in ivory. For that reason, it is important that we continue to support schemes that give us evidence: for example, MIKE, the monitoring of illegal killing of elephants; and—dealing precisely with his point—ETIS, the elephant trade information system. We support those international efforts to make sure that we understand the problem and that we in this country have our house in order. I am impressed by the expertise found in a variety of agencies and shall continue to ensure that we play our part.