Badger Cull

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to a debate on this subject, as I have done on a number of occasions. It is important to commence my remarks, following those of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), by saying that, coming from a rural constituency, and indeed a farming background, I think that the important point needs to be repeated once again: what we are talking about is the impact of a disease on the lives and livelihoods of farmers and their families. The impact of this terrible disease is, I believe, the biggest issue the farming industry currently faces, certainly south of the border.

Given all that, I think that we need to be reminded why we are here. Sadly, this is not about the welfare of the badger—of course, it should be—but about the future of the farming industry. It was on that basis that I first engaged with this issue, at the beginning of the randomised badger culling trials some 15 years ago. I was a member of the then Agriculture Select Committee that was looking at the issue and I strongly supported the roll-out of what was effectively evidence-based policy making introduced by the previous Government, and indeed proposed by Professor Krebs as a result of some earlier work under the previous Conservative Government. It was about building up an evidence base on which to go forward with a policy to bear down on this terrible disease, which is having a devastating effect on livestock farmers, especially in some parts of the country, such as west Cornwall.

[Bob Stewart]

Is this debate not about the welfare of cattle, the welfare of badgers and the fact that this horrid disease is spreading across the country more and more? We have to do something to find a solution.

[Andrew George]

Absolutely. This is, of course, about the impact the disease has on a whole range of wildlife, including badgers, but the primary focus, and the reason this is being driven, is the economic, emotional and social impact it has on the farming community and the viability of many marginal livestock farmers, particularly in my part of the world.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about evidence, and I think that we all agree totally that that is the right way forward. Does he not accept that the Government ignored the evidence and just went ahead with the culls? Everything that they were warned would happen has indeed come to pass.

[Andrew George]

I am on the record as having cautioned the Government about the roll-out of the two pilot cull projects.

I want to ground my comments on the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial. Some 15 years ago my constituency was selected as one of the triplets, so we had a proactive cull in part of the Penwith moors. I backed the cull because it was on the basis of evidence-based policy making. I followed with great interest the outcome of that research and its conclusions, which found that reactive culling had no part to play in the management of bovine TB in the livestock industry, and that proactive culling could have a meaningful impact only if carried out in a thorough manner that achieved a high level of cull consistently over a long period, which meant that it had to achieve a 70% cull rate within the hot spot areas and across a wide enough area. If the Government chose to adopt this policy, it was important that they did so in such a robust manner that it would have a real and demonstrable impact. My concern about their approach is that they wanted to do it in a manner that would not be at great expense to the public purse and therefore at the cost of the farmer, although of course the state had to step in to provide the support with policing costs, at great expense in the case of both the pilot culls. The outcome of this work ran the high risk of making the situation significantly worse.

That is why, as a result of looking at the Government’s proposal, I proposed in my constituency the introduction of a community-led badger vaccination programme across a wide area—200 sq km. We are going to roll this out significantly later this year on the Penwith peninsula, working closely with the Zoological Society of London, which has now decided to take on a management role in it. Professor Rosie Woodroffe, who has been mentioned several times already, will be taking the lead on the project having originally been involved in the independent scientific group overseeing the randomised badger culling trials.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Whatever our views on this subject, one need only remember what the Secretary of State himself said in this Chamber in October 2012:

“It would have been quite wrong to go ahead when it was not confident of reaching the 70% target and could have made the position worse.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 847.]

Those are the Secretary of State’s own words. I wonder whether we are now getting from certain Government Members mere bluster to defend an absolutely abhorrent policy that is not helping the farming industry and certainly not doing anything for animal welfare either.

[Andrew George]

I think those who called for this debate were anticipating, or hoping, that the IEP report would be out by now, as it should have been. That would at least have ensured that the information was already in the public domain and had not been disputed by the many people who will have seen it. I think we can make a number of reasonable assumptions about the figures in the report regarding the lack of effectiveness of the two pilot culls. We have a significant amount of evidence to go on—and it will be found to be sound—that those projects failed to achieve even a 50% cull of badgers, even in the Somerset area where it is considered to have gone slightly better than in Gloucestershire. In these unfortunate circumstances, we have to move forward on the basis of the information that is currently in the public domain.

I wish to conclude my remarks with a couple of straightforward points. First, a number of people have alighted on a report from DEFRA this week that has highlighted the fairly significant fall in TB reactors in the herd across the country—down from 37,734 in the period until December 2012 to 32,620 last year. That has happened before the impact of the pilot culls or anything else can be taken into account, which might mean that a lot of the other measures that this Government and the previous Government have engaged in are beginning to show some effects. That cannot be ignored.

Secondly, I want to refer to the collective research that was brought together by Professor James Wood at Cambridge about a year ago. I do not have the document with me, but it showed that even in the herds that had been given the all-clear after a reactor, up to 25% continued to have latent TB within them. In this debate we are concentrating significantly on vaccinating rather than killing the badger population, but we should be concentrating a great deal more on biosecurity measures and ways in which we can bear down on the latent disease that still remains in the United Kingdom livestock industry. Even though it has been given the all-clear—

[Roger Williams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

I will, but I am probably testing the patience of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr George, it is not my patience you will be testing; it is that of your colleagues who are patiently waiting to speak. For the third time, I remind Members that they must speak for eight to nine minutes, including interventions. Mr George, you have been speaking for 11 minutes.

[Andrew George]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will bring my remarks to a close by reminding people that I believe that vaccination is the way forward. It is the cheaper alternative for the Government, it is likely to be more effective, and it never runs the risk of making the situation worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I want to say a little about what we have done to progress an oral vaccine. We are spending £1.6 million a year—

[Andrew George]

The Minister referred to the trials that were about to commence in the Penwith area with the support of DEFRA, which is providing the vaccine ampoules, which is much appreciated. He said it was only seven. It was only a small trial of the methodology, not of the numbers.

[George Eustice]

I expect my hon. Friend will do better next year.

As I said, we are spending £1.6 million a year developing an oral vaccine. We have made some progress on the dose required for that vaccine, and it is around 10 times more than would be needed for an injectable vaccine. We have also made some progress towards identifying a bait that would be successful, and we have made some progress towards linking the vaccine to fats that can help get it through the digestive system. But there are drawbacks even to an oral vaccine. Not all badgers will take it, and some badgers may eat more of it than others, so it will never be 100%. But we accept that nothing in this challenge is 100% and that is why we are pursuing it.

On injectable vaccines, I have had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) to look again at whether we could refocus some of our vaccination efforts, either in the edge area, as the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) suggested, or around the east Sussex area. I have said that we will look closely at that. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we are doing some work in that area now, and we would be willing to develop that further.

On cattle vaccines, the Secretary of State met the commissioner on this just last week. We are continuing to do some work to develop a DIVA test. Field trials will take three to five years, so as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it will be eight or nine years before we can get export clearance for the use of such a cattle vaccine. However, we are committed to taking this forward.

I agree with hon. Members that improving the control of cattle movements is an important tool in the fight against TB, but I simply point out that we have done a lot already. We now have annual testing in the high-risk area, and four-yearly testing across the whole country. We have banned practices such as approved quarantine units. We now have radial testing in the low-risk areas where we get an outbreak. We have stopped cattle going to major shows since July 2012. We have introduced risk-based trading to help farmers manage the risks. We have an ongoing consultation about restricting movements and introducing pre-movement and post-movement tests to common land. We are introducing deductions for farmers who are late in having their TB test, and we have reduced the pre-movement testing window from 60 to 30 days. So we are doing a huge amount, but I accept that we should be constantly looking to improve and do more, and we are looking, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) suggested, at whether more could be done, for instance, on biosecurity measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I regularly debate the issue—a debate was held in Westminster Hall before the Christmas recess—and we are now waiting for the independent expert panel to produce its report. When that report is concluded, we will make further proposals and announcements about the next step.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Even if the independent expert panel concludes that the Government’s cull policy is effective, which is highly unlikely, does the Minister not accept that the Government must consider a plan B that includes the vaccination of badgers, which they must get behind, as well as moving forward as quickly as they can with cattle vaccination?

[George Eustice]

We published a draft TB eradication strategy at the end of last summer and we will shortly publish a final version of that strategy. It accepts that there is a range of measures we should pursue, including developing vaccines, and we are doing some work to develop an oral vaccine for badgers as well as on cattle vaccines. We are considering other measures such as contraception for badgers and increased cattle movement controls, so we are covering a range of issues as we try to solve this difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question but I remind him that last time this issue came before the House, the Government had a good majority of 61. I am not prepared to put any pressure on the independent panel; it is up to it to take its time to evaluate the evidence and report to us, and we will come back in due course.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If the panel finds that the pilots were ineffective, what will the Government do?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We will obviously analyse the reasons the panel puts forth in its report. He asks a hypothetical question, and all I can say is that we just have to look at other countries. There is no doubt that if we look at Australia, the scientific evidence shows that it is now TB free. We can look at the United States and the white-tailed deer, the brushtail possum in New Zealand, or Ireland, which I have just cited. The Republic of Ireland is a scientific, practical example because by bearing down on the disease in cattle and in wildlife, it has got it down to the lowest level since records began. We will follow its example.

Fishing Industry

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), and I congratulate him on emphasising the importance of safety at sea and on repeating what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said in opening the debate about the bravery of those who work so hard in such difficult conditions and who face significant danger to put the fish on the plates of people all around the United Kingdom. We are about to commemorate the 40th year of the tragedy of the Gaul, and in constituencies such as mine, literally scores of fishermen have lost their lives in pursuit of this vital industry.

In opening, I want to pay a significant tribute to the former fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who achieved a tremendous amount during his period of office—with the exception, I have to add, of his decision on the salmon drift-net fishery in the north-east. That does not impact directly on my constituency, but the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) certainly raised important issues about that.

Having ranged as widely as I intend to, I shall now become extremely parochial for the rest of my speech, as I shall look into the impact of negotiations on common fisheries policy reform on the vitality of the fishing industry in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. My constituency has a significant port in Newlyn, as my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Camborne and Redruth, well knows. The amount of fish landed in Newlyn every year is of considerable value, and the fishery, in which the over-10 metre fleet is unique, is an ultra-mixed one. The by-catch of spurdog and porbeagle in the ultra-mixed fishery of Cornwall is particularly significant, and I have raised issues about this on behalf of the industry for the past decade. The problem is nothing new to the fishermen in my area.

I know that the UK Government are engaged with the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, as is the Cornish fleet with scientific projects and research such as the Neptune project. All this engagement and work will be perceived as pointless if no change to the policy results and no attempt is made to provide a pragmatic solution to this important issue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that one problem for politicians is the pressure that comes from non-governmental organisations to restrict this type of fishery? It can lead to the perverse outcomes I mentioned earlier. The supply is reduced but demand remains the same so that shark fishing starts to happen in another part of the world. Meanwhile, the by-catch here is returned to the water dead—a double hit that emanated from probably good intentions, albeit ignorant ones.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point I raised on previous occasions. Although I have every sympathy and agree with the sentiments expressed by the NGOs—we do not want to take action that will have a detrimental impact on, or undermine the viability of, important species such as spurdog—the fact is that we need to engage in trying to find a practical solution to the problem, and simply saying that we are going to ban the landing of these fish does not necessarily mean that a single spurdog will be saved. We need to find more effective methods of achieving the desired outcome. I hope that the NGOs will engage with the Government and, in our case, with the Cornish fishing fleet, the Neptune project and so forth to find a practical solution rather than simply campaigning and saying that what is being done is never good enough.

Another theme running through the debate—one feels that one is repeating oneself from the same hymn sheet—is the arbitrary use of the 20% precautionary element of the quota-setting process, particularly where the science is insufficient for the setting of an effective quota. I hope that the Minister will talk to the industry and come to understand not just the anecdotal evidence, because a lot of work is being undertaken nowadays with scientists going on board many of the vessels and subsequently sharing their data and information.

The reasoning behind some of the annual quota cuts is unjustifiable and, in many cases, counter-productive because no fish are saved. I urge the Minister, rather than to run through the impacts on each fish species of the proposed quota settlements for next year, to look closely at the representation he received last week from Paul Trebilcock on behalf of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I think that a cogently argued case has been made, which I hope the Minister will use as a brief. I know that Paul will be available and at hand if the Minister needs any technical assistance in the negotiations.

Another key issue that crops up time and again in the fisheries debate is the perceived conflict between commercial fishermen and sea anglers—something that is played out in our debates and in a lot of the discourse that goes on in Cornwall, for example, in connection with the Cornwall inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and in the Isles of Scilly, where there is a separate IFCA.

One significant pinch point relates to the setting of the bass minimum landing size. I corresponded about that both with the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury, who I see is leaving his place, and the present Minister. At the end of the day, angling contributes £2 billion to the economy and a total of 23,600 jobs. The angling fraternity is keen to ensure that the Government recognise its important role for the UK economy, especially when about 75% of the fish caught by anglers, including those caught at sea, are returned alive to the water.

A number of issues have arisen in Cornwall. For instance, bass do not spawn until they reach a minimum of 42 cm, but the minimum landing size in Cornwall—which is higher than those in the rest of the country—is 37.5 cm, and elsewhere it is 36 cm. We need a healthy bass minimum landing size. Local sea anglers are arguing for the minimum to be raised to 48 cm in order to allow the fish to breed at least twice before there is a chance of their being caught, and I think that that is a justifiable argument.

According to this year’s report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, bass stocks have fallen by 35% in the last five years. In our area in particular, there has been a significant amount of pair trawling on a seasonal basis. Scottish pair trawlers sometimes come down to the channel to take their slice, but no pair trawlers from our own coasts are involved, and although we see a great many bass longliners, they are very selective in their fishing methods and their impact is therefore relatively small. Fixed-gear gill netting takes place inshore, and I think it important to set an inshore net size that will prevent the catching of juvenile fish. The minimum landing size for mullet, for example, is 20 cm, but they do not spawn until they are 48 cm.

Our local branch of the inshore fisheries and conservation authority has engaged with the industry in trying to find a solution, but the IFCA tells me that the Government must become involved if that is to happen. I recently received a letter from its chief officer and head of service, Edwin Derriman, in which he wrote:

“I am aware that Defra is considering the ICES report”

—that is, the report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to which I referred earlier—

“so I have to assume the UK Government will comment in due course. The Government and the EU are the proper authorities for considering that report, as it is for that audience that the ICES reports are written and any concentrated action to protect the species has to come from”

the Government and the European Union. Mr Derriman went on to say

“the Government do not necessarily agree with Cornwall IFCA’s view that a general increase in MLS”

—minimum landing size—

“would or could be beneficial for all stakeholders.”

I hope that the Minister will inform us of the Government’s latest thinking on that issue.

In another letter, Eddie Derriman wrote:

“an unexpected challenge has come about through the forthcoming EU ‘discard ban'.”

It is true that many people did not anticipate that challenge. There has been a campaign for a discard ban, and I have certainly joined the chorus, although I have consistently pointed out that if a logical solution is to be found, it will be important to find a way of distinguishing between what is intended and what is unintended in relation to catch quotas.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

Let me first say something about the impact of the discard ban on minimum landing sizes generally, and on those relating to bass in particular.

Eddie Derriman wrote:

“There is a lot of discussion on the principle that if discards are banned, then MLS sizes may be defunct. We cannot second guess the likely outcome to all the discussions, but I would hope that common sense prevails and that ‘robust' fish species could be put back in the water it there is a good or reasonable chance of them surviving.”

While we agree in principle that it is unacceptable for perfectly good and edible dead fish to be thrown back into the water and wasted—a rather offensive image which has, I think, driven the argument for a discard ban—I think that we should think about the potential unintended consequences, one of which is the increased difficulty of implementing a minimum landing size. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that as well.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that we needed to establish whether the fishing of endangered stock was targeted or non-targeted. I know that during the autumn at least one boat contained 400 boxes, and I am sure that all the other boats have done the same. That should serve as a guide to civil servants and scientists who are formulating some sort of policy.

The one thing that fishermen do not want to do is go on a fishing trip and load their boats with fish that have zero value. They do not want to steam out, fill their boxes with fish that they did not intend to catch, do not want and cannot sell, and then have to steam back and land them on a pier. That is the worst of all worlds for a fisherman.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need short interventions. There is a danger of Members’ trying to make speeches by means of interventions, which worries me. Six more Back Benchers and two Front Benchers have yet to speak. I do not want to have to impose a time limit, but it is looking likely.

[Andrew George]

I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could, of course, extend the debate to the relative merits of quota and area management, but I will simply say that, in my view, area and seasonal management and a more effective use of closed areas are a better way of controlling and protecting fish stocks than quotas.

Let me end by making a couple of brief points. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that in Cornwall we have drawn attention to the potential risks to our crab fishery, particularly in the over-15 metre sector. One of the problems of the way in which the industry is managed is that requests for significant cuts in the catch are often given at very short notice. Much more planning is needed if we are to avoid shocks of that kind.

I also want to raise the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I know that my hon. Friend has a reputation, indeed a pedigree, for being strongly anti-European, and I hope that I can draw something out of his anti-European-ness. I am talking about simply batting for Britain. Let us all join forces, and agree that whether we are engaging with Europe positively and constructively or negatively, what we want is the best deal for Britain. It is clear that most of the foreign boats that are taking advantage of access within the 12-mile zone and up to the six-mile zone are new, and were not around at the time of their historic entitlement. I urge my hon. Friend to scrutinise the impact that they are having very close to our coasts. I also ask him to think about the point that we have reached in the negotiations on the setting of marine conservation zones, which lie both within and outside the six to 12-mile zone. We need to ensure that we apply the same rules to both foreign and British vessels.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It is important to recognise that the setting of the total allowable catch will remain a European competence, but the management measures will be decided by the member states. On the signing of those management measures, the Commission’s role will be to ensure that we are fishing sustainably. There is an issue—my hon. Friend highlighted this—that, legally, a competence can reside either directly with the Commission or directly with member states. A hybrid system is difficult, but I think our agreement enables us to do that. The Commission can use mechanisms to make agreements between member states legally binding.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I want to press on; otherwise we are going to get a bit tight on time and I want to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

The UK has been leading the way in Europe in trialling schemes that tackle discards through managing fisheries by what is caught, not what is landed. Catch quota schemes have been very effective in reducing discards, and following the success of those schemes I want to continue to help vessels with the transition to the landings obligation under the reformed CFP.

With the aims of the reformed CFP in mind, we will enter the negotiations at the December Council next week, where fishing opportunities will be decided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) highlighted, it tends to end up being a late night. In fact, when anybody who has experience of the December Council describes it to me, they do so with a bit of a grin. I am not quite sure what to expect, but I will get some sleep over the weekend.

We aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities consistent with our high-level objectives, which are, first, following the best available scientific evidence; secondly, achieving maximum sustainable yield; and thirdly, minimising discards. A range of issues will be UK priorities in the negotiations.

Badger Cull

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

The fact is that the Welsh Government rejected any suggestion of a cull and are going ahead with a vaccination programme, which I hope this Government will accept for England. It seems a more appropriate way forward, rather than proceeding in the current manner. I am about to come on to some of the scientific evidence, which clearly refutes the assertion just made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies).

Public safety has been compromised and costs have spiralled out of control, but the Government say that the policy is based on the previous randomised badger cull from, I think, 1998 to 2006. The conclusions of that cull showed that, far from actually making things better, it actually resulted in a 29% increase in the incidence of TB outside the cull area. I will quote from paragraph 9 of the independent scientific group on cattle TB’s final report, which is a weighty tome that runs to some 200 pages:

“After careful consideration of all the RBCT”—

randomised badger cull trials—

“and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the…control of cattle TB in Britain.”

There we have it. The scientific evidence from the randomised trials could not be clearer. It is there in black and white. I invite the Minister to read it. It was actually produced for the Government, and I simply do not understand why they have been so unwilling to take account of the evidence before them.

The cull has been utterly unsuccessful. It was supposed to kill 70% of badgers, but it has managed only 39% even though it was extended from six to 11 weeks. Cattle have been put at greater risk. Ministers say they are standing up for the farming community and that they want to eradicate this terrible disease, but they are embarking on a programme that is making matters worse. They knew it would make matters worse, because the evidence from the scientific report told them so.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He mentioned the science and scientific assessment, and he will be aware that Lord Krebs, in the Grand Committee debate on Monday, described the trials as a “complete fiasco.” There is a critical question that the Minister needs to be asked today. Without prejudging the findings of the independent panel, which was charged with assessing the cull’s effectiveness and humaneness, if it finds that the cull was neither effective nor humane, would the Government stop the cull?

[Chris Williamson]

One would certainly hope that the Government would. I am going to refer to Lord Krebs in a moment, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Professor Woodroffe, who is a leading expert in such matters, said:

“It’s very likely that so far this cull will have increased the TB risk for cattle inside the Gloucestershire cull zone rather than reducing it.”

Scientific evidence from a few years ago and contemporary scientific opinion both say that the cull is making matters worse. Yet the Government still want to proceed with more culls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My primary concern as I approach this subject is for the lives and livelihoods of livestock farmers in my constituency that are affected by bovine tuberculosis. Until people see the impact that it has, they do not fully understand why it is such a significant issue for livestock farmers, particularly in my part of the world, where the number of reactors has been very high.

I am extremely passionate about evidence-based policy making and in 1998 I strongly backed the randomised badger culling trials, which have been mentioned, and that was the right approach at the time. In my view, the evidence has been used rather selectively to advise on the way in which policy should be rolled out by the Government. The worry that I had when the Government came up with their proposal was that it ran the risk of making the situation significantly worse.

In view of the fact that in the Penwith area, where there was a proactive cull, there was only 50% co-operation among farmers and there was a large element of activist intervention as well, it was clear that we would never get a licence there. It was on that basis that I went to the Zoological Society of London, and Professor Rosie Woodroffe and I came up with a proposal to establish a vaccination programme that was community-led, volunteer-led, using the big society approach, across the Penwith area. I am pleased that DEFRA is supporting us—it is doing so in a rather minuscule way, I am sorry to say, but at least it is a start—in providing the vaccine ampoules during the whole programme, up to 2019. This is across 200 sq km of Penwith. We have strong buy-in by the local community. The farmers are coming on board. We have undertaken a pilot in the area. Indeed, I have been out to oversee that and I can confirm, as a result of having been in the field and seen the badgers moving the goalposts and doing various other things in the countryside, that even slimy politicians do not seem to have a perturbation effect on badgers when they are being vaccinated.

I raised one of my questions for the Minister earlier. It relates to what the independent expert panel will conclude. Of course, there has been the “what if” question. What if it finds that, on all three counts, the trials are effective, humane and safe? But what if it finds that they are not effective? It is not even there in terms of judging whether the cull is effective in controlling bovine TB, because it would take years to undertake that. Also, I understand that the independent expert panel has been given only a six-week window; it is looking only at the six weeks. I hope—I have asked the Minister this already—that it will be given an extension to the full 11 weeks or more to review the effectiveness, safety and humaneness of the cull, but I cannot see that there is any sense in allowing the cull to continue.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate your stewardship of the debate, Mr Weir. I want to make three brief points and try to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak as well.

I am a member of the British Veterinary Association and I think that the aspersions cast on the British Veterinary Association today—the character assassination that was attempted—were wrong and shameful. The many Labour party-supporting vets up and down this country will, I am sure, be very concerned at the way in which they were character-assassinated today by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I think that he should consider what he said, because his passion in the debate does not give him a right to character-assassinate members of the British Veterinary Association, who have the interests and welfare of all animals in this country at heart.

When I intervened earlier, I mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and I was concerned that its advertising campaign is the only thing that publicly, by an independent body, has been described as “alarmist” in terms of how it has tried to suggest that the only thing to do is vaccinate or exterminate. I wish that we could vaccinate our wildlife in this country and protect it all, but we have to be realists and to make a judgment call about what is more important: sacrificing a few wild animals to ensure that our beef and milking herds up and down this country are protected from a pernicious and nasty disease that ruins lives and ruins many thousands of our cattle in this country, or not doing that. We have to face reality.

The rant from the hon. Gentleman today was very disappointing, because he failed at every opportunity—

[Andrew George]

To take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Paisley]

No, not to take an intervention; I do not care if the hon. Member for Derby North does not want to hear an intervention from me. He failed to take the chance to support our bovine herd and our farmers and basically tried to portray a picture of it being either them or us. We are all in this one; we have to find a solution to it; and we have to recognise that if an animal is carrying a pernicious disease, it needs to be put down, not only for its own welfare, but for the welfare of the bovine herd.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Perhaps I can help hon. Members out by saying that the combined estimated worth of pork, beef and lamb to China and Russia is £230 million over three years. In September this year, the Secretary of State visited Russia to help open these markets.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

12. What progress he has made on reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

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

A common agricultural policy reform deal has been agreed between the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Overall, the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we did improve the Commission’s original proposals, increased flexibility and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. Our formal consultation on CAP implementation in England was launched earlier this month and will run until 28 November.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that reply. In order for British farmers to remain competitive in world markets, it is important that the CAP helps them to meet the reasonable constraints that stop them simply turning the British countryside into ranch and prairie. Is the Minister content that, as drafted, the CAP will deliver public goods without simply giving money to large farmers who do not need it?

[George Eustice]

One area we are looking at in our consultation is how to develop an agri-environment scheme in pillar two. We are keen to build on the fantastic track record we have in these areas. It has always been the Government’s position that we can do more for the environment by spending through pillar two rather than through pillar one. That is why we have aimed to keep as simple as possible the greening measures in the conditions for the single farm payment.

Badger Vaccines

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Morris]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the potential for the Government’s policy to make the situation worse, that is likely to happen if the cull levels are as low as they are reported to be. I have to congratulate the Government, however, on their support for a proposed community-led badger vaccination programme on 200 sq km in my constituency, in the Land’s End peninsula, Penwith. The first year of vaccination on contiguous farms is going ahead with the support of Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London.

[David Morris]

I would like to see similar programmes rolled out nationally.

I must make some progress. The latest parliamentary report was published by the all-party group on dairy farmers, which was established by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The group had 250 members, of whom 70 were Labour MPs, and the report recommended a badger cull. Research done under the previous Government suggested that the cull will reduce bovine TB by 16%. Obviously, that is a good thing, but we must work towards eradicating TB completely. From what I can see, a vaccination programme for both cattle and badgers is the only way to ensure that. I do not want to dwell on the need to vaccinate cattle and the problems that that would raise, but it is worth flagging up that, if we can do that in a cost-effective manner, we should.

A BCG is available for badgers, which is not unlike the injection most of us had at school. The concern about it is that the need to trap and tag badgers in order to deliver it effectively can make it expensive, as we have discussed. There seems to be widespread agreement, therefore, that we need an effective oral vaccination, and I again invite the Minister to comment on research and development and the progress in that field. It is worth pointing out that, this week, a National Farmers Union briefing was fully in favour of work on vaccines, while DEFRA is undertaking a survey of the number of badgers in the UK, which shows that there is common ground between both sides, even if that is not obvious at first.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I do not want to get drawn too far into cattle vaccination, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to perfect the so-called DIVA test that differentiates between the two. It is clear that it will take some time. The European Commission has put a time frame of 10 years on getting to that stage. I would like that to be quicker, but we have to be realistic—there is a lot to be done.

I come back to supporting badger vaccination. DEFRA operates a badger vaccination fund; in the current year, that has prioritised support for vaccination in the “edge area”. The fund offers start-up grants of 50% to fund the first year of vaccinations. Having said that, it is true to say that applications this year have been a bit disappointing. We are now looking to understand precisely why that is, so that we can get it right next year. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we are keen to work with all those groups, including voluntary groups, who would like to participate, and to work out how we can get them engaged in that.

I also intend to discuss a plan that the hon. Member for St Ives has on the issue—I have promised to meet him and Rosie Woodroffe. The Department has made a modest commitment to support some vaccination in that regard and he has some ideas; we are keen to pursue that option and look at it.

[Andrew George]

I put on the record my gratitude to DEFRA for the initial funding of the pilot, which is proceeding this week. The intention is to cover the whole 200 square miles of the Land’s End peninsula, and we are increasingly gathering the co-operation of farmers in the area.

[George Eustice]

I know that, and I look forward to discussing the matter further when I meet the hon. Gentleman. The training scheme has become more popular since, as part of the DEFRA-funded badger vaccination fund, we have offered grants of 50% to voluntary and community sector volunteers to train as lay vaccinators. That is another area that we would like to look at.

Finally, I want to say a few words about our work on developing an oral badger vaccine. A badger vaccine could be administered orally through baits. It would be more practical and potentially cheaper, which is why DEFRA continues to fund that. It is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, that we have cut expenditure on that. We are, as I say, still spending about £4 million a year in total on developing cattle and badger vaccines.

There are things that we would need to resolve when it comes to the development of an oral vaccine. We would need to work on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine formulation and make sure that we can deploy the bait to attract the maximum number of badgers. One of the problems is that badgers will not take the bait that is used, so it is important to have the right bait.

Another problem can be that one badger might eat all the bait and another badger might not get any, so there are challenges. We also have to deal with the potential impact and safety for other wildlife. There is still further work to do, but we are committed to taking it forward, and we are clear that that ongoing work will play a role in our strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to that point, given that the policy must be based on sound science and evidence, can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been similar dramatic drops in badger numbers in the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency site at Woodchester park and sites such as Wytham in Oxfordshire, where they are monitored closely?

[Mr Paterson]

I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers at Woodchester park, but in other areas there has been a significant reduction in badger numbers compared with this time last year.

Fishing Quotas

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

Communities and the fishing industry all around the coast have been affected. The problem in recent years has essentially been quota management, but the common fisheries policy, on which the Minister has been fighting tirelessly over the past three years, is also a factor, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The Minister, to his credit, tried to impose a modest redistribution of unused quota, which equated to 0.1% of the fixed quota allocation units in the UK. He sought to be reasonable and conciliatory to POs in doing that, and when representations were made against his proposals, he reduced the number of realigned units from 10,494 to 7,901. Despite that, the producer organisations took the view that the Government’s proposal deprived them, without compensation, of what they viewed as a valuable entitlement, even though it was minimal and, in effect, represented quota that was not being used. They therefore launched a judicial review arguing that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, was interfering with their property rights, and had behaved in a discriminatory manner.

Last Wednesday, Mr Justice Cranston delivered his judgment. He found in favour of the Government, dismissing the producer organisations’ challenge. His judgment contained several conclusions. He summarily dismissed the producer organisations’ main argument as

“falling at the first hurdle”.

He expressed sympathy with the views of NUTFA and Greenpeace, the two interveners in the case, that fishing quota and the fixed quota allocation system should always be considered against the backdrop of the principle that fish are a public resource, which is an understanding that dates back to the Magna Carta. He said that the Secretary of State had done nothing that disabled him from changing the fixed quota allocation system to address consistent non-use of quota. He expressed the view that the Secretary of State’s decision to reallocate quota was justified and that the means chosen were proportionate. He said that the Secretary of State’s decision did not constitute interference with, or deprivation of, possessions, as the producer organisations had contended. He also expressed the opinion that the producer organisations and their members have no proprietary interest in the fishing stock itself, and that fixed quota allocation units give no right to any specific amount of fishing stock in advance of the annual ministerial decisions on quota that take place each December.

With the decision coming shortly after the agreement on CFP reform, there is now a real opportunity to carry out a root and branch reform of UK fishing and to replace a system of management that has become dominated by big vessels with no connection to local areas and provides no significant benefits to either the local or the national economy. Instead, we should be looking to put in place a system that supports local communities and brings with it significant environmental, social and economic benefits.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he is making his case. I entirely agree with the conclusion that he is reaching, but does he acknowledge that large producer organisations work well with local inshore under-10 metre boats in some parts of the country? Does he agree that it would be appropriate for those vessels to ensure that they keep a record of their catch of non-quota species forthwith, because it is inevitable in the years to come that they will be asked to demonstrate what fish they have been catching over a reference period?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is wrong of me to tar all producer organisations with the same brush. Back in 1994 and 1996, it was probably wrong that the under-10s were not keeping such records, and they have learned a lesson from that.

Based on the response from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, such a reform would in my view have public backing, as well as the support of fishing communities from all around the UK, and it would now have legal justification. Common fisheries policy reform, as well as setting out the courses for the elimination of discards and the introduction of a decentralised management system, also has the requirement for member states to allocate fishing quota taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations. This provides the framework for root and branch reform. I urge the Minister to pursue such a course and, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended in its 2011 report, to base these reform proposals on the needs of the inshore fleet, rather than on the existing patterns of work of the offshore fleet. DEFRA should identify those stocks and areas where a re-alignment of quota allocation would be of real benefit to the inshore fleet.

To prevent the problems of the past recurring, there is a vital and urgent need for transparency. As a high priority, it is important that a publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions is published as soon as practicably possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to the progress being made in providing that by the end of the year, as has previously been stated. Without a clear register, it is incredibly difficult to see who is benefiting from the nation’s fish resource and to work out whether it is being properly shared out so as to get maximum social benefit. Such a register should establish what proportion of quota is currently held by non-fishermen. It would, I hope, at least dispel the urban myth that has grown up that football clubs hold quota. I urge that consideration be given to introducing a requirement that in future quota should be held only by active fishermen. A further proposal to consider is that in future DEFRA should make greater use of its powers to re-allocate unused quota in-year.

For whatever reason, we have allowed an inexplicable system to develop, with a barely comprehensible trading method inside producer organisations which is both complex and opaque. We need to consign this to the dustbin of history and move forward to a more professionally managed system with direct licensing from the Crown to fishermen, with more clarity over who has what. This way the public can get the best out of what is, after all, their fishery. There is a need for a proper formal mechanism to grant fishermen new fishing rights. A new fisheries Act may be necessary to achieve that

It would be helpful to know the timetable that the Minister has in mind for coming forward with proposals on which the industry can be consulted and which this House can debate. It is important that the right decisions are made and a management system put in place that provides fishing communities all around the coast with a sustainable future and ensures that the inshore fleet is able not only to survive, but to flourish.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Emphatically, yes: I am very happy to confirm to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, as we work out the detail of the implementation of the reform in England, our drive will be to ensure that the agricultural sector gains from it. As I made clear in my comments on pillar two, we want to direct this towards rural areas in a way that benefits the rural environment and rural farmers.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is, of course, right that public money should be spent on public goods. At a time of severe austerity, what public good is there in spending hundreds of thousands of pounds—indeed, £1 million cheques—on large landowners who do not need the money?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The fact is that we are going from 7 billion to 9 billion people. There has been complacency in this country over recent years, because there was unlimited, safe and easily accessible food to be bought abroad. We want to make sure that we have an extremely efficient, high-tech agricultural sector producing food. I take food security extremely seriously and welcome large, efficient farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the importance of the national pollinator strategy, which we hope to have in time for consultation at the end of this year. A wide range of other pollinator-friendly policies and initiatives are in place, but there are gaps we want to fill, particularly in research. That will give us the opportunity to look across Government and work with non-governmental organisations to review everything we are doing and establish our commitment to the future security of pollinators.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T9. The single-use plastic bag tax has proven successful in Wales. It is being adopted in Ireland and will soon also be adopted in Scotland. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current plans regarding the introduction of a similar tax in the rest of the country?

[Mr Heath]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been looking at this issue for some time and we believe there is a need to bear down on the use of plastic bags, particularly those that are non-recyclable. We are looking carefully at evidence from Wales and note the decision in Scotland. We hope to come forward with plans in due course regarding what is appropriate for the English market.