Ash Dieback Disease

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have not yet formally responded to the independent panel on forestry, but we have indicated that we accept the thrust of its recommendations. I look forward to giving a full response early in the new year on that subject. The future for forestry is very bright, despite setbacks of the sort that I have described today. I repeat that we have not cut back on the allocation of resources. I hope we will be able to mobilise not just scientists, foresters and the voluntary groups for which he has spoken up, but everybody who has an interest in trees in this country, to ensure we have a thriving forest—not only today, but in future.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Given that there will be a desire for public vigilance, what will the Government do to ensure that public concern and support for taking action on this issue are properly and effectively harnessed?

[Mr Heath]

I am keen that all of us with an interest in tree health take responsibility for this. We cannot all be experts on fungal diseases of the ash—I do not expect that—but people should report clear symptoms of ill health in trees to the authorities. The Government play their part by ensuring that research programmes into aspects of tree health are augmented, and we will thus ensure that we have healthy forests in the future.

Badger Cull

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Were we to eradicate every single badger, we would certainly eradicate bovine TB, but we would also eradicate a very important species.

The ISG concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

That is the conclusion of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself says is the most scientifically robust trial that has ever taken place in the UK. We want policy to be based on the science, which is why we should be looking at what the ISG says.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If we are to talk about eradicating bovine TB, it is important that we go back to the science and try to put emotions aside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned a moment ago. The trials clearly showed that the best possible outcome would be a 16% reduction, but that is a reduction in the context of an increasing incidence of TB. Indeed, the Secretary of State has talked about the incidence of bovine TB doubling in 10 years. In those circumstances, all a cull would do is reduce the increase. It will not result in a reduction in bovine TB.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that it is worth reading what Lord Krebs said in the House of Lords, because it is exactly the point the hon. Gentleman identifies. He said that

“the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms”,

as the hon. Gentleman rightly said,

“but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

That is the key point that Government Members are not taking on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, as we have heard in the debate and in the statement on Tuesday.

Many hon. Members will want to discuss vaccination. I am pleased that, in the west country, there have been efforts to roll out badger vaccination programmes. They seem to have been successful, although it is the very early stages. Many hon. Members will discuss the scientific evidence, which seems to me to be overwhelmingly in support of the notion that badger culling would have a limited impact if any—I believe it says there would be a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years.

However, in the time available, I want to focus on cattle-to-cattle transmission. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) probably misspoke when she said that if every single badger were eradicated, we could eradicate bovine TB—she went on to say that we could not eradicate all badgers and mentioned cattle-to-cattle transmission. In response to a question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in September this year, the Government accepted that about 50% of cases of bovine TB in areas where the randomised badger culling trial took place were attributed to badgers. The other 50% were attributed to cattle-to-cattle transmission. In areas where there is lower incidence, there is a much higher rate of cattle-to-cattle transmission.

It is important to address that point. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not seem to be willing to acknowledge in Tuesday’s statement the very significant role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in spreading the disease. Indeed, when he was asked a question about cattle husbandry, he said that the problem was that badgers can get into sheds. He also said that famers grazing cattle in fields cannot prevent badgers from getting to them. That is not what the cattle husbandry issue is about—the Secretary of State was focused totally on badgers, rather than on what happens when cattle spread disease. The fact is that many of the badgers that carry TB are not particularly infectious—[Interruption.] I can cite evidence on that.

[Andrew George]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not want to give way again in the time I have left.

I was concerned that the new Secretary of State seems not to have got to grips with cattle-to-cattle transmission, but I accept that tighter controls will be introduced from next year, which I welcome. When his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), made a statement on the cull just before the Christmas recess, she failed to mention cattle-to-cattle transmission, as I pointed out to her at the time, although she did mention it in her statement in July. There is a degree of complacency in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on cattle-to-cattle transmission, which needs to be addressed.

On the history of bovine TB, it is clear is that, in the 1960s, when strict quarantine rules and the rigorous testing of cattle were in place, bovine TB was almost eliminated from the UK. However, farmers were not happy with the regime and complained, and, to quote George Monbiot:

“TB returned with a vengeance”.

Professor Graham Medley of the university of Warwick has said that the only way to eradicate TB in cattle would be a return to the stricter and more effective controls that were in place 40 years ago. Professor John Bourne, who led the randomised badger culling trial—which, as we know, concluded that badger culling could make “no meaningful contribution” to controlling bovine TB—agrees with Professor Medley. Professor Bourne has said that only stricter biosecurity can control bovine TB. The RBCT report states:

“Weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”.

A European Commission report of September 2011 revealed significant evidence of bad practice in English farms. It found that failure to abide by cattle TB prevention measures was widespread. The Commission gave the UK €23 million in 2011 for bovine TB control measures. Its inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and that, in the first half of 2011, more than 1,000 cattle had not been removed after 30 days. It found that there were 3,300 overdue TB tests as of May 2011 and that many calf passports, which are used to track movements, were incomplete. It also found that only 56% of disease report forms had been completed on time. Funding cuts were cited as the reason for the failure of local authorities to update their databases.

The Commission report concluded that local authority surveys provided evidence that

“some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags, ie retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place.”

A couple of Government Members are shaking their heads, but farmers have been prosecuted for that in the west country.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion. It strikes me that many who have spoken in its favour have done so having assumed for themselves the mantle of majority support and that the country is behind them, but I can tell hon. Members that my constituents are not behind the motion. I can say that with some authority, because I surveyed some 30,000 households over the summer and one of the questions I asked was whether they were in favour of the Government’s approach to pilot culls to tackle bovine TB, and the results were that 59% were in favour of pilot culls, 27% were against and the others did not voice an opinion.

The reasons why a majority of almost 2:1 of my constituents are in favour of the Government’s courageous policy are simple and have been rehearsed many times during this debate: the huge loss of our cattle—some 26,000 last year; the huge expense to the taxpayer of almost £100 million last year and £1 billion over the next decade, if this is left unchecked; and a cost for every farm where there is an outbreak of £30,000, of which £10,000 is borne by the farmer. This is unsustainable; it cannot be allowed to continue.

As many hon. Members have said, there is a human cost to farmers, their families and the communities in which they live. That cannot be underestimated. One of my most special constituents is Mr Brian Warren, who runs a voluntary organisation called Farm Crisis Network, which provides pastoral support to farmers in distress. I invite any Opposition Member who supports the motion to come to Central Devon, sit down with Brian and listen to some of the stories about the misery that our farmers are going through as a consequence of this scourge. On most occasions, it is nothing short of harrowing.

I wish to deal with a couple of arguments that have been made by those on the other side of the debate. The first is that we somehow claim that our approach will be 100% successful. We do not. The culls will be pilots, from which we will learn. We accept that we will not eradicate bovine TB in the cull areas, but we have to accept that no other approach will lead to quick and certain 100% eradication either. We therefore have to use the proposed approach, along with increased biosecurity. The Government announced as recently as last week that biosecurity would be tightened up. We also have to look to the ongoing use of vaccination and the development of vaccines in future.

The second argument that has been deployed is that our approach will have no effect whatever on TB, or indeed will make it worse. Many Opposition Members have mentioned the independent scientific group and the Krebs trials as evidence, but time has moved on and so has the assessment of those trials. New analysis and new research has challenged some of their conclusions. I refer specifically to the report of one member of the ISG, Professor Donnelly. As recently as last September, she wrote:

“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull”—

the Krebs trials—

“to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28.0% lower…than in survey-only areas”—

as used in the trial—

“and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1% lower…than outside survey-only areas”.

As time has gone on, the evidence in favour of the effectiveness of culling has hardened.

[Andrew George]

Professor Donnelly has also shown that that reduction still represented an increase in the incidence of herd breakdowns, but at a lower level than would have been the case had the cull not gone ahead. That reduction is at the nub of the justification of the Government’s policy, but it was not an absolute reduction.

[Mel Stride]

In the absence of any other factors, that is correct. However, the pilot culls that are now envisaged for next year will be held on a different basis. The area over which they will be held will be substantially larger than for the Krebs trials, which is an important factor. We have talked much about the effects of perturbation, which will be reduced by having hard boundaries such as coastlines, rivers and motorways.

I turn to the issue of vaccination. It is simply impractical, as things stand, to consider the vaccination of badgers as a sensible way forward. Until we achieve a reliable oral vaccine we simply do not have the resources to go out and trap badgers individually, on an annualised basis, and have trained, registered and licensed personnel to go out and inject them with vaccine. That is simply not going to happen. I laud the Government for spending a considerable sum—some £16 million a year recently—to help develop the vaccines that we need.

It must be reiterated that even if we vaccinate cattle, we still do not have a reliable, licensed and usable test to differentiate cattle that have been vaccinated from those that are carrying TB. The DIVA test is not yet licensed and usable.

I have one or two quick points to make to Ministers. First, one reason why the NFU decided to ask the Government to postpone the pilots was that there was a fairly significant under-estimate of the number of badgers in the pilot areas. I press the Government to ensure that the same mistake is not made next time around, and to ensure that the badger survey that is being conducted, which I believe will be concluded next year, is carried out with great rigour and examined extremely carefully. We need to know what the numbers are.

Secondly, I ask that the Government press hard to ensure that the DIVA test is made available, fully licensed and put in place, so that we can use it if we can move forward on the efficacy of vaccinations and our position with the EU.

Thirdly, I ask Ministers to consider the fact that we need the consent of landowners who own 70% of the land in the pilot areas. In fact, it is important that we achieve well in excess of that, because it is quite conceivable that landowners will be leant upon at various points during the pilot, and that some may drop out of the scheme. We need to get well above that threshold.

Finally, we need to press on. We should recognise the courage and decency of the current Secretary of State and the Ministers who came before him, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). They have a done a sterling job of standing up for our farmers, their families, our communities and those who believe in the rural way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.

[Andrew George]

Of course, after these two pilots merely assess the effectiveness and humaneness of the culling method, the intention is then to roll it out throughout the country at a very much accelerated pace.

[Dan Rogerson]

We will see what happens during the pilots. Looking at the methodology is one of the key issues, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. It might be that other problems are pointed out, which would make it impossible to continue, but we have to give the people involved the chance to carry out and test what happens. As Opposition Members have said, we will not have the data that we need to move on unless we try to do what the ISG findings point towards: using the hard boundaries, using the wider area and getting on and doing it.

I have heard some hon. Members say that the coalition Government have cut spending on vaccination. Actually, since 1994, just over £40 million has been invested; over the next four years, the Government are planning to invest over £15 million. That means an acceleration of the effort towards vaccination. We still have problems with the tests. It is possible that the DIVA test will get us where we want to be, but we are still not there yet. The practicality of vaccination is another issue. We have talked about the practicality of a cull, but there are huge problems around vaccination.

We would all like to get to a state where it is not necessary to carry out intervention of this sort in wildlife. We would all like farmers and others concerned about animal welfare issues to unite around something—but we are not yet there. Effectively, we are saying, “Let’s do nothing.”

On biosecurity measures, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who, as she said, has looked a great deal at food policy, painted a bit of a picture of farmers who were completely lackadaisical and not at all interested in biosecurity. It is in their interests to be interested in biosecurity, as they are the ones who suffer in their businesses from restrictions and all the other problems that we have now. Of course they are taking the issue seriously. The one or two of them who are not will be rejected by the rest of the industry, which is absolutely committed to delivering on the further restrictions that the Government are introducing.

To say that the cull is an easy option and that farmers are going to hang up on biosecurity, forget all about it and just get on with killing badgers is absolute nonsense. I do not want to over-characterise what the hon. Lady said, but the gist was that farmers do not care. Of course, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was quite scathing in what he had to say.

I am running out of time. To Members who think that those of us with rural constituencies are doing this because we are after votes, I should like to say that we are not. Huge numbers of people even in my own constituency where bovine TB is a problem have told me that they are worried about a cull of badgers. We are doing this and supporting it because it is the only game in town at the moment—it is the only thing that we can possibly do to bear down on this problem. If we fail, we will deserve to be roundly criticised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It goes without saying that the research must be carried out, that it must be ongoing and that it must not be prevented as a result of what we are trying to do here.

I commend the Republic of Ireland—shock, horror, stop the presses: Paisley commends Republic of Ireland!—which has already carried out a cull. I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with jealousy on the part of those of us north of the border who do not get to shoot. The cull in the south of Ireland has led to a significant reduction in confirmed new infection rates among cattle herds. I believe that if this scheme is tried and proved to be effective, especially in countries where a land border is shared with another nation, we should adopt it. I believe that we should be learning—yes indeed, learning—from the Irish Republic on this important matter. I am happy to concede that point.

The BVA made a strong and significant point about vaccination. Although the badger BCG vaccine is currently available and undoubtedly plays a role in managing the disease, it is not proven to protect fully against infection. It merely reduces the progression and severity of the disease in animals that become infected later, and it has no impact on those infected prior to vaccination. We in Northern Ireland are currently carrying out a trapping test; we are trying to get animals trapped. As has been suggested, perhaps we should only use trapping to cull badgers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman must accept that as badgers die at a very rapid rate—25% attrition each year—vaccination would result in a significant decrease of infection in badgers, whereas culling increases the preponderance of infection in badgers.

[Ian Paisley]

We have to accept that culling is not a silver bullet—it is not the magic answer—but vaccination is not the magic answer either. We have to try to tackle this problem, however. We have to continue searching for a vaccine that will work and will not destroy our herds and prevent us from selling our product.

We have to try this cull to see whether it can succeed. The costs are £100 million a year. We have to do something. This is robbing money from our hospitals, schools and roads. We are wasting taxpayers’ money; we are pouring it down the drain. We have got to address this problem.

The BVA has made it clear that there is no existing data to prove that badger vaccination has an impact on the incidence of BTB in cattle. Even if it does, it will have a much slower impact than the removal of badgers by culling.

I want to say a few words on the impact of TB in Northern Ireland. We have spent £200 million in the last six years trying to eradicate the disease, but we have failed. We want to spend £20 million this year trying to do it, and we are going to fail—and we are going to wipe out a number of our best milking herds. We also have criminals in Northern Ireland who deliberately try to infect herds so that they can get compensation. This problem has got to be addressed now. I hope the Government have got the guts to get on and do it. It will not be nice—it is not going to be pleasant—but we have to solve this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I would like to return to a point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) made at the start of our discussion: that the debate can easily become polarised between “team badger” and “team farmer”, when what we need is “team science” and “team TB” and to address the issue much more calmly and rationally, because outside the Chamber there has been much light as well as a certain amount of heat.

I should like to emphasise from a constituency point of view and from my farming background the need fully to understand what is driving the issue and the disease’s emotional and financial impact over decades on very committed people in west Cornwall. Many Members have this afternoon conveyed the emotions that are felt from the impact of this devastating disease.

I strongly supported the RBCT in my constituency, which involved a proactive cull on the Penrith moors, and faced down the very strong campaign against the line I was taking just over a decade ago in support of the trials because I believe in sound science being the basis by which we take forward policy to bear down on TB. In a climate where the science might encourage legislators to prevaricate, to recognise dilemmas and perhaps to see only the need for further research and not to take action, the Government should ensure that they do not make the situation worse. We say that policy making must be evidence based, but as the Government former chief scientist, Lord Robert May, said in The Observer just a couple of weeks ago, the Government risk transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.

There are a number of knowns in the science, one of which I put to the Secretary of State at DEFRA questions today—that some of the figures from the RBCT have been exaggerated or cherry picked to justify the policy. For example, there is the argument that TB in culling areas was reduced by 30%. The research itself showed a reduction of somewhere between 12% and 16% in the net impact. Overall, this resulted in reducing only the increase in TB infection.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two of the other knowns are the recent breakthrough in the DIVA test, which could lead to it being put forward for licensing, and a 60% efficacious BCG vaccine for cattle, which could also lead to licensing, although it would require the Government to negotiate with the European Union for field trials within the UK?

[Andrew George]

There are certainly significant gathered knowns now that were not available 10 or 15 years ago. To go forward, we need to build a policy on a sound foundation—not simply on selective evidence.

In his summing up, I hope that the Minister will deal with the evidence in support of the Government’s policy. Will he recognise that the 12% to 16% reduction in incidence of infection for herds within culled areas in the randomised badger culling trial is not an absolute reduction, but a net reduction, which means only that the incidence is increasing at a lower level than it would have been without the cull. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Government were to acknowledge that.

Let us use the opportunity provided by the pause to go back and speak to the many scientists who are still saying that the Government have got this one wrong. Instead of having a war of words through the media, let us make sure that those scientists—the majority behind the ISG—are brought in. I believe that they should be involved.

Finally, I hope that the Government will accept that we should go to Europe, as was implied by the hon. Member for North East Somerset and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) in his intervention. These matters are not, after all, pre-ordained by God; these are decisions taken by human beings in Europe. We need to take a strong case to Europe in order to sort out the regulations and advance the testing of the vaccine and the DIVA test. That should allow us to come to a solution that is generally workable and does not make the situation worse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am not blaming anybody. I have been working very closely with the NFU since I took office. I have been studying this issue since I was the shadow spokesman and put down 600 questions, taking a serious, detailed interest in it. This is the right policy. It is the policy pursued by every other country, as I have said. Unlike with the vapid pronouncements we have had from the Opposition, this Government will take on a deadly disease, which is a zoonosis, so if we do not get a grip on it, it will prove a risk to human beings.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

In view of that and of my right hon. Friend’s answer, it is important to base things on sound science. If he has read the science and understands the answers he has received to the 600 questions, he will know that the 12% to 16% reduction has to be viewed against a rise elsewhere. It will not rise as much as it would have done otherwise, but it is still a rise in bovine TB. Does he not accept that?

[Mr Paterson]

No, I dislike disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I used to work closely on the EFRA Committee and when I was the shadow spokesman. The evidence is absolutely clear: there was a 28% reduction in disease after nine years in the cull area. That is why we are going ahead next year.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) started talking about the matter two and a half years ago, as soon as we came into government, and he has been in regular contact with European colleagues. I will work with them as closely as possible once we have a practical basis to work on. As I explained to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), we are sadly just not there yet. That obviously has to be an absolute priority, because we have agreement about it not just right across the House but right across the country.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision not to proceed in the current circumstances. Above all, the Government should not take action that risks making the situation worse. Given that he emphasises the importance of science, will he take the opportunity provided by the pause until next summer to review all the science, including that recently commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself, which may point to alternative ways of bearing down on this terrible disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comment, and during this time we will of course press on many fronts. We have a number of tools in the box, and we are using those that are currently available. As I have touched on, there are new ones coming down the track—PCR, the DIVA test, gamma interferon and others that I would like to investigate with real speed. We cannot just use the current tools, because we are not getting on top of the disease. It is getting worse.

Agricultural Wages Board

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely the case that there was overwhelming opposition to the proposal of the then Thatcher Government to abolish the AWB. Thankfully, the arguments against abolishing the AWB were listened to then, and common sense prevailed. Sadly, like much of what this Government are trying to achieve, whether that is the dismantling of the NHS or the destruction of local government, the abolition of the AWB is unfinished Thatcherite business, as my hon. Friend has just implied.

In a report for the Low Pay Commission in December 2011, Incomes Data Services argued that

“the agricultural sector is distinct from other sectors in that it is comprised of small employment units but with the additional feature of seasonal or casual workers”.

The AWB may indeed be an anomaly in our economy, but the agricultural sector is so different from other sectors of our economy that it is a necessary anomaly. Small farmers, who make up the majority of the industry, do not have the time, the expertise or, frankly, the funds to negotiate with their workers time and time again in what is an increasingly pressurised working environment.

The standards of pay and conditions set by the AWB enable farmers to focus on running their businesses and producing the products that we all need—increasingly so, as this year’s poor harvest demonstrates in many ways. In abolishing the AWB, the Government are not freeing farms from unnecessary bureaucracy. Instead, they are making the lives of small farmers more difficult and creating an even more bureaucratic working environment than the one that currently exists. That is the last thing that small farmers could possibly need. Instead of having to deal only with the AWB, in the future farmers will need to work with myriad different organisations, each one governing a different area of employment regulation and each, in turn, exposing every small farm business to new and different liabilities and complexities.

In their report calling for the retention of the AWB, the Welsh Government correctly noted that if the board is abolished

“pay bargaining would become instantly fragmented”.

It is important to note that, although the leadership of the National Farmers Union backs the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, it might not, on this occasion, be speaking for every small farmer in England, or Britain—it is certainly not speaking for those in Wales. I greatly respect the NFU and its leadership, and have very good relationships with NFU leaders in my constituency who, for the most part, skilfully, adeptly and effectively represent their members’ interests, but I think that they have got it wrong on this one.

The farming union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales and many small farmers across the UK want to retain the Agricultural Wages Board. The Government claim to be on the side of farmers, but on this issue they are making farmers’ lives much more difficult, making their businesses much harder to run, and doing the exact opposite of what the Government should be doing—at all times but particularly in these straitened times—which is supporting our nation’s farmers and making it easier for their businesses to survive and grow.

The situation profoundly affects my constituency and my home county. Across the north of England there are 28,180 agricultural workers, with 12,260 in the north-west, 3,300 in Cumbria—my home county—and almost 600 in my constituency. Copeland is the constituency that is most dependent on public spending in England. It is also the English constituency that is hardest to reach from Westminster—yes, there is a link—and more than 50% of the local economy is based on public spending.

Throughout my time in this House, I have sought to rebalance my local economy through the growth of our local private sector, but it is difficult to do that, and is becoming more so. At a time when the majority of public spending cuts are yet to bite—perhaps the Minister could tell us if he supports the additional £10 billion cuts that the Chancellor has announced—and when the budgets and services of local authorities in my area are being decimated, the removal of a body that helps small businesses to do business and maintains minimum workplace standards and minimal rates of pay surely cannot be right. This is a detached policy, from an increasingly detached Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. On what is likely to be lost, there is also the unique problem that agricultural workers are exceptionally isolated in terms of their negotiating and bargaining power. On the abolition, and the consultation that has been announced today, does the hon. Gentleman not share my disappointment? We should not be obsessed with organisational structure—I am not going to die in a ditch defending the existence of the Agricultural Wages Board—but the board provides protections, and without it the only safety net that agricultural workers will be left with is the national minimum wage. A whole strand of negotiations is available through the existing regulations.

[Mr Reed]

I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I must point out that I did my best for his economy over the summer when I holidayed in his area, but I am afraid that I did not write to him to let him know of my visit and I hope that that is forgivable. His points are absolutely correct.

In the written ministerial statement published this morning, it is claimed that the abolition of the AWB will help to achieve

“the Government’s objective of harmonising and simplifying employment law, and removing regulatory burdens from businesses”.

It goes on to say that it will

“contribute significantly to the Government’s programme of public body reform and support the Government’s growth agenda”,

but I think that the effect will be almost the opposite of what is intended. It is incredible and inexplicable that the analysis that is so simple and obvious for people who live in rural communities has not been brought to bear on what the Government aim to achieve.

Some 38% of all agricultural workers in England are seasonal or part-time employees—in Wales the figure is 56%—and statutory protections are woefully lacking. It is due only to the Agricultural Wages Board that seasonal and part-time farm workers enjoy the same rights as full-time workers. Without the board, young employees will have no set rates of pay, which will open them up to lower pay. Without the board, seasonal workers will not have secure contracts, which will open them up to exploitation. How often do we see stories of exploitation? Even now that we have the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, we still see egregious examples of exploitation in the agricultural industry and others around the country. How much easier are we about to make it for future incidents to occur?

Without the Agricultural Wages Board, part-time workers will not be guaranteed rest breaks, which will open them up to worsening conditions. In abolishing the board, the Government are giving bad employers the opportunity to cut pay and worsen conditions in a race to the bottom, and in whose interests is that? In the Low Pay Commission’s 2012 report, it was noted that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board could lead to an increase in rural poverty. Rural areas such as the eastern coast—my own constituency and across Cumbria—parts of Wales and rural areas of the south coast are already among the most deprived in the country. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, the Government—this Tory-led Government—are doing what most people already feared they would do: making life harder for the poorest.

I know that the Government and the National Farmers Union will say that farmers are not planning to reduce wages and conditions, and I have always rejected—and always will—the lazy, ignorant stereotyping of many in this House when it comes to understanding farmers and farming, but if this year’s dairy crisis has proved anything it is that farmers will continue to face downward pressures on farm-gate prices. Pay and conditions can be a soft target, even for the best farmers, when faced with rising cost pressures, such as the ones we saw this summer. The proposed abolition is bad for farmers—it will make their lives more difficult—and it is bad for employees, as it will make their jobs, pay and working conditions much less secure.

In addition, the AWB ensures housing for 30% of farm workers, provides bereavement payments and leave, ensures that new parents get child payments, gives suitable rest breaks for hard-working farm employees and provides a host of other employment benefits that as a result of abolition will be lost or greatly reduced. In his conference speech only last week, the Prime Minister said that his Government would always support those who worked hard. There are few people who work harder than farm employees; they work long hours, and many of them do literally back-breaking labour day in, day out, all of it to make products we all need and enjoy each and every day of our lives. Yet it appears that the Government insist on making their lives more difficult, reducing their protections and changing the agricultural industry from one often characterised by good working relationships to one in which wage negotiations are fragmented, and jobs, pay and conditions are no longer secure. After abolition, farmers who have for generations lived in secure homes will face possible eviction, and hard-working people will lose payments that make their lives just a little easier, as the economy gets worse and worse.

The Government’s decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board has not been followed by the Scottish or Northern Irish Governments, and the Welsh Government want to retain the board in Wales. Once again, it appears that this Government are pursuing a path of action with which very few people agree, and even fewer want to see. Even the NFU cannot claim to be speaking for every small farmer. Indeed, evidence suggests that only the biggest of farmers agree with the action; smaller farmers and farm workers do not want to see the AWB abolished. The board must be retained; it is not in the interests of farm employees, of farmers, of the agricultural industry, or of rural communities and economies to abolish it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

On my point about an obsession with organisational structure, I generally agree with the broad thrust of the Government’s approach, which is to abolish or amalgamate as many quangos as possible. We should always be bearing down on the proliferation of Government agencies and quangos. The important regulations and the six grades that are available, and the other protections for agricultural workers, could be transferred from the AWB to an existing body such as the Low Pay Commission. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should perhaps not be obsessed with the board itself but look at ways in which the regulations could be overseen or protected by an existing Government agency?

[Mr Reed]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I understand the point he tries to make. The issue, however, is whether the abolition meets the Government’s own criteria? Does it pass the Government’s own test, and will it cost more to undertake the functions that the hon. Gentleman outlines within other bodies than to retain the Agricultural Wages Board? Let us see the evidence—that is my request to the Government.

Finally, and in a way leading on from that intervention, in the event of abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, what checks will the Government introduce to ensure that wage levels and working conditions do not collapse? How will the checks be undertaken, and how will they be paid for? Will the Government undertake an economic impact assessment of how the abolition will affect each English region, particularly those that depend heavily on public spending? If so, will the Minister undertake to publish such an assessment, and if not, can he tell us why not? I look forward to his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

That is interesting. My hon. Friend will know of Hazel Spencer’s letter to the shadow ministerial team for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

“I have been in horticulture for nearly 25 years, working for the same nursery since 1987. During this time, as you can imagine, I have seen many changes. The work is sometimes hard, sometimes repetitive and often carried out in less-than-pleasant conditions.

I initially started as part-time staff, at a time when we had very little right to sick pay, holiday pay and certainly no Bank Holiday pay. Over the years and mainly due to the negotiations carried out by the AWB on behalf of us ordinary workers, conditions within our industry have improved. We have received wages in alignment with those recommended by the AWB: SSP has been supplemented by Agricultural Workers Sick Pay, to bring it in line with a weekly wage during illness, and we received a tax allowance towards providing suitable clothing to cope with the conditions of our workplace.

Basically, what sustains most of the people who work in this industry is the fact that we are earning a fair day’s pay for what we do.”

My concern is that we are asking small farmers to become employment specialists of some sort. Are they going to go to solicitors? Are they going to make mistakes? Are we going to see more people before tribunals? Those are real concerns that the Minister has to address.

If I might be mischievous for a moment, I draw attention to an early-day motion signed by the Minister in 2000 that called for the then Labour Government to

“retain the Agricultural Wages Board as it is currently constituted.”

Does he still think that should be the case?

Ultimately, everyone in the Farmers Union of Wales is opposed to the abolition of the AWB. They are concerned that the removal of the AWB will leave farmers exposed when having to negotiate pay and conditions. The AWB is a very good model that could be used by employers and unions across the board. The model has worked since 1924, and the Attlee Government established the AWB in 1945. Again, as often with the current Government, all we see is a drive for cuts in mythical red tape.

I say this whenever we talk about employees’ rights: happy workers are the best workers. The real issue that has to be addressed in society, whether in the countryside or in the urban world of banking and finance, is fear of job insecurity, which is the thing most people worry about. When employment rights are taken away, people are less secure, less productive and do not perform as they should.

I know we are going through a consultation process, but if the Government do not put something in place, we will start to drive wages to the bottom. Yes, as the written ministerial statement highlights, farming has massive opportunities because of the growing world population, but those opportunities will only be fulfilled with productive workers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and the hon. Gentleman have both quoted the farming unions. The hon. Gentleman has particularly emphasised the difficulties that abolition of the AWB might cause small farmers. My impression is that although, without question, the National Farmers Union is phenomenally good and very effective, one of its weaknesses is that it is primarily a large farmers’ union. I do not think that small farmers necessarily have their voices represented through the NFU as effectively as possible. If I had heard from farmers that the AWB needs to be abolished because it constrains them from being more progressive in their treatment of workers, I might have considered that a stronger case for the abolition of the regulations and the AWB.

[Chris Evans]

As we heard from the Minister this morning, it is important that small farmers are involved in the ongoing consultation. My concern is still for the small farmer. If he or she gets into bother with employment law and finds themselves in front of a tribunal simply because they do not know the law—they have done nothing wrong—or something like that, it would be an extra burden that they do not need. They also do not need the extra burden of negotiating things such as SSP, which we have talked about, wages and certain allowances. Those people do not need further burdens.

We have already heard from the Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that they do not want to burden employers further, but all I can see is the driving down of wages and the burdening of employers. The AWB takes away that burden, and I hope the Minister sees the sense of my argument: first, we do not want to drive down wages; and, secondly, we do not want small farmers to face further burdens by being tied up with red tape. If the small farmer has to negotiate and is concerned about employment rights, first, they are not going to employ more people and, secondly, they might exit the business altogether, which would be a tragedy.

I hope the Minister will say something about what will be put in place to ensure that wages stay at the higher standard, rather than falling. What is he going to do? If the Government go ahead with the abolition of the AWB, what support will be available for small farmers on things such as employment rights?

Dairy Industry

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the outgoing Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice). I had the immense privilege and honour of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary for a year and a half. With his experience and expertise, he was one of the best farming Ministers this country has ever had. His departure is a great loss to the Government.

I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in 2006, in the previous Parliament, because of the terrible crisis my Shropshire dairy farmers were going through. An important statistic to remember is that in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered in Shropshire as a result of bovine tuberculosis; last year, that figure was more than 2,000. I repeat those figures: from 47 to more than 2,000. The misery that that disease has caused many of my constituents is appalling. When I set up the all-party group, 170 MPs joined it. Uniquely, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, joined the group. I believe that that was the only all-party group he joined in the previous Parliament.

Our group produced a report in which the two recommendations were that we needed a limited cull of badgers and a supermarket regulator. At the time, we were told that it would be impossible to get either. We pleaded with the Labour Government to introduce a regulator and to take action on bovine tuberculosis. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. I am therefore slightly bemused to hear Labour MPs calling for us to support their actions on an adjudicator, because we pleaded on bended knee for years and no action was taken. One reason why the situation is so perilous at the moment is the inactivity of the previous Labour Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about a supermarket or groceries code adjudicator, I have been chair of the Grocery Market Action Group for the past six years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it was only just before the 2010 general election that we had agreement from all three main parties that an adjudicator or ombudsman should be put in place.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading proponents of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I look forward to working with him to get that proposed legislation through Parliament.

I want other hon. Members to be able to speak, so I will just briefly say that I have sat with dairy farmers at their kitchen tables, and seen those grown men burst into tears. The emotion involved in seeing their herds slaughtered is profound. I hope to hear from the Minister what steps the Government will take to address this appalling issue.

I will write to the Minister specifically with regard to a constituent of mine, Mr Jones of Pontsbury, who recently lost a lot of his herd. He has been given new figures on compensation that are much lower than he thought. He is worried that he will not have enough money to replace the cows he has had to send to slaughter. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that case.

I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) regarding exports. I feel passionately about exports to north Africa and the middle east. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are full of Dutch and Danish cheeses, yoghurts and other dairy products, yet there are none from the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will work closely with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to try to help the dairy sector find new markets in those countries.

Finally, I would like to put on the record that we now have a new Waitrose supermarket in Shrewsbury—the first one has just opened. My daughter and I go every Saturday to Waitrose, because it is the supermarket that pays most to dairy farmers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I will convey the right hon. Gentleman’s encouragement to the Under-Secretary, because the negotiations are indeed tough when dealing with countries that still pursue whaling practices.

May I put the matter of marine conservation zones in context? The Under-Secretary made a statement to Parliament in November last year, making it clear that an independent scientific review had found the evidence base for the designation of those zones to be insufficiently robust. I am sure the House wants the decision to be based on evidence and led by science, so we will not be rushed into making a decision without that additional evidence. On the figures in reports, the right hon. Gentleman should take them with a pinch of salt.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the introduction of further marine conservation zones, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the intention is not to put out of business those fishermen who engage in low-impact fishing, particularly mackerel handlining on the Cape bank off the Cornish coast? Surely, in designating these zones the intention is to strike a balance and to ensure that we get things right.

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation, which underlines the point about the need to ensure that the evidence is robust and to balance the needs of all those who require access to our marine and coastal waters, but who have at heart the health and welfare of our seas. We need to ensure that the evidence base is robust.

Flooding

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I am confident of that because we have reached an advanced stage of negotiation with the insurance industry to secure universal and affordable flood insurance. It is often misunderstood, but the statement of principles was no guarantee of the affordability of insurance. We understand how important that is, and will make a statement shortly.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It seems that the heavens are opening with distressingly increased regularity and intensity. Given that the science of forecasting is improving and the growing responsibility of the Environment Agency, what more can be done to ensure that that science is harnessed and that mobile defences are put in place to respond to it?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is right that the capacity to forecast has improved. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gives the Flood Forecasting Centre £2.9 million per annum, which continues the funding position from before we came into government. The accuracy of the forecasting means that we can give communities vital hours in which to give advice to home owners on how to protect themselves and their possessions. I suggest that communities that face flooding regularly, which substantial parts of Cornwall do, consider technical provisions, such as text messaging, backed up by flood wardens who knock on doors personally. I saw people in Sussex resist moving even when all the advice had been given to them. There is no substitute for the human touch.

Fish Discards

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

Britain has been policing illegal fishing, whether by UK or foreign vessels, and will continue to do so. I am pleased that we recently instigated a very heavy fine on an overseas vessel fishing in our waters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to ensure that fisheries are managed as close to member states as possible. There are some good words in the text that allow member states to take action when it is right for them to do so. Subsidiarity is supposed to underpin a lot of European legislation, and I ask him to look at the provisions we secured on regionalisation. Whether or not we had a CFP, we would still have to work with other countries because we are talking about an ecosystem, fish that swim in our waters and those of other countries, and the historical fishing rights that go way back beyond the European Union, so I think we have a good message and that it is something he can be pleased with.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has helped to secure in the negotiations. Does he agree that if the regional dimension of the common fisheries policy is to succeed it is critical that fishermen are engaged as key stakeholders in the management of those regions?

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. For too long fishermen have felt right at the bottom of the decision-making process, under layer upon layer of control. I hope that we can have a system that is simpler and closer to them. In December I sat up late into the night discussing with Commission officials where an eliminator panel should sit in a net that was to be used off the Shetlands. That is an absurd system. I hope that a more regionalised approach will mean that decisions are taken by fishermen and closer to where they fish.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House says that he has one opening next month, and one opened in my constituency in recent weeks. Beyond that, I am afraid that I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure, but there is fervent support for the kind of initiatives that see community shops opening. We want to do our best, through big society support and other policies, to ensure that more happen.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), the Minister knows that the so-called historic entitlement of foreign vessels within the 12-mile zone is widely abused. In the forthcoming negotiations, will he ensure that the legal basis on which that historic entitlement is claimed is properly reviewed and the integrity of the 12-mile zone restored?

[Richard Benyon]

I want my hon. Friend and the House to understand that we are considering very seriously the suggestions that I have received in recent weeks, not least from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, about legal methods through which one could secure greater control. The most important thing is to get more regionalised and locally based management of our fisheries, and that is what I will discuss tomorrow in Luxembourg and will continue to discuss through the negotiations. I assure my hon. Friend that illegal activity in our 12-mile waters is something that I take very seriously and I want to ensure that enforcement is effective at every stage.