Badger Cull

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to vaccines.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. The House is very short of alternatives. If we are to have a mature, intelligent debate, the House and the public need to consider what the realistic alternatives are. The badger population was in decline and was given protection in the 1970s, for very good reason, but when we see the extent to which the population has grown and the implications for the spread of bovine TB, the position is very serious. I have two auction marts in my constituency, one in Thirsk and one in Malton, and the implications of the cattle restrictions generally are difficult for them.

I want to make a general point about the six-day rule. I understand the position with regard to the cattle restrictions relating to bovine TB that are in place in the south-west, and the need for a swift response to any potential animal disease. But, particularly at red cattle marts such as Thirsk, the operation of the six-day rule, as intensive and as regulated as it is, is having a negative impact. Many livestock producers will not take their cattle or sheep to mart—it is true that there are fewer pigs now—on the basis that they may not be able to obtain the price that they need and they will have to go to slaughter anyway. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at reviewing the six-day rule. It could be brought back swiftly if need be.

The sad fact, which has been demonstrated in today’s debate, is that not many of us living in Britain today have close rural roots. When a pilot cull was introduced in Ireland, it proceeded smoothly, effectively, clinically, and virtually without disruption. Do the Government have anything to learn from the conduct of the Irish cull? The fact that many of us now live metropolitan lifestyles leads, regrettably, to an increasing misunderstanding of animal husbandry and welfare issues.

In the few moments that I have left I want to commend to the House the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on vaccination against bovine TB and the Government’s response. I am delighted to record that both Front-Bench teams were well represented on the Committee when it took evidence. We looked carefully at injectable vaccine for badgers, oral vaccine for badgers and oral vaccine for cattle. There are difficulties with each that we can rehearse this afternoon, but will the Minister update the House today on where we are, particularly with regard to reaching agreement in Brussels with our European partners and at home on each of those matters?

I pay tribute to the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency in Sand Hutton in Thirsk and Malton—

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am reaching a conclusion.

FERA is doing work on sterilisation. Oral contraception has been referred to, and the sterilisation of the badger population would be welcome, but it will inevitably have a cost implication. There are also questions about its practicality. It would make sense for the Minister to update us today on that work and to review its cost implications and practicality. That could be a real alternative. I was not aware of it until the Select Committee had the opportunity to visit FERA. Today’s debate is particularly timely as we consider the alternatives to produce a healthy cattle and a healthy badger population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Unlike those of the previous speakers, my constituents have cattle. They also have experience of TB and are wrestling with the problem.

I am sorry that the debate is taking place at all. I have a great deal of respect for the Backbench Business Committee, but it would have been considerably more helpful if it had waited to hold the debate until after the report had been published. If we have a scientific report, it is worth reading it before having the debate.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned once again the IEP report and it might help the House to know that we now know, as I have had a response today, that the report is available and on the desk of the Secretary of State. May I ask through you whether the Minister and officials, through their good offices, could produce that immediately and put it in the Library? We still have time to look at it and consider it in the debate. That would help all Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

That is clearly not a matter for the Chair, but the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and, as he has said, there is plenty of time left in the debate at the moment.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to you for your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike the shadow Minister, I do not have access to the Secretary of State’s desk. Even if he has the report, I have not seen it and neither have my hon. Friends. Even if it is available today, we should have read it before we had the debate.

Let me return to the core of the debate, which is science and whether the Government have paid sufficient attention to the scientific detail and acted accordingly. It is wrong in every way to base an argument on a leaked report before its conclusions are in the public domain. Whatever our view, particularly if we are unsure about badger culling, we should take some comfort in knowing that before the Government roll out the policy across the country they test it with pilot schemes. Further comfort should be taken from the fact that they ensure that effectiveness and humaneness are the key factors that are tested.

We might find it hard to know without references from scientists whether a badger dies quickly or slowly when hit by a bullet. We might want to know whether the number of badgers culled is sufficient to prevent the spread of bovine TB. We cannot know these things unless the experts have published their reports, yet we are discussing the issue without the report. I can see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), waving bits of paper at me, but I want the constituents we all represent to have the same information as everybody in this House when we comment on this.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Given that we are talking about the pilot cull and the House is being asked to make a decision about whether the cull should be rolled out, the point is not just about the report. If the report makes recommendations, we will want to know the Government response to them. We want the considered view of the Secretary of State and if he has only just received the report, he needs time to digest it and make some decisions.

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely right.

[Angela Smith]

Even if we do not have the IEP report, we know that the pilot culls took 11 weeks rather than the RBCT’s recommended maximum of 11 nights. That means that the pilot culls have failed, does it not?

[Bill Wiggin]

I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that I have been generous in giving way to her, because she had quite a long time to have her say. I regret bitterly that in her speech she did not condemn the activities of people protesting that might have meant that the tests took longer. She should have done that, because whatever the report concludes about the trials, it is indisputable that what applies to one species should apply to the others. If we cull cattle, we should cull badgers. If we vaccinate badgers, we should vaccinate cattle. It is inconsistent treatment of one species or the other that damages disease control. That is proven by the spread of the disease and the inconsistent record of the previous Government.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Wiggin]

Yes, I will give way, although I must not give way much more.

[Caroline Lucas]

The words that the hon. Gentleman has just spoken are scientifically so wrong. All the evidence that we have seen demonstrates precisely that the strategy taken should depend on what species we are talking about and on the ecology. Just because culling makes sense in one context with one species at one time, it makes no sense to say that that means it is okay to do it in a different environment. The circumstances matter, not the general principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is so completely and utterly wrong. The joy of that is that the evidence is before us all. We have seen the disease spread by the policies of people like her. She does not have cattle, she has never done a pre-movement test and she does not know what she is talking about. Unfortunately, this is too serious a subject for her to pontificate on. If she was right, the disease would not have spread in the way that it has.

I would like to see far better skin tests. The old skin test is extremely iffy. It gave my bull, Jackeroo, a false Johne’s disease result. Happily, he subsequently proved to be free of the disease. I would like to see gamma interferon more readily available to any farmer who gets a skin test reactor. It would also be helpful if the Government were to publish the facts and figures proving that when a gamma interferon test is used, more TB reactors are detected earlier and the chance of getting a future clear test is significantly increased. If that is not possible, DEFRA needs to get us a better test.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Very briefly, what does the chief veterinary officer for the Government suggest should happen?

[Bill Wiggin]

We would love to know. We would love to know what the Government think of the report, but we have not seen it yet.

I have always preferred vaccination, and I believe that it should be targeted at healthy badger populations where the chance of a badger being infected is low but likely to increase due to their proximity to infected populations. This means vaccinating healthy badgers working inwards, geographically, towards the centre of infection. Professor Woodruff gives an excellent speech on the benefits of an immune population and how we can achieve that. This should also apply to cattle, and I am more than willing to do everything possible to help the Government achieve cattle vaccination.

There are endless arguments to suggest that vaccination is better than culling. I am more than willing to accept those arguments, but they cannot apply unless they apply to both species. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent damage to our export markets from vaccinating cattle. It is not widely known that meat from infected cows showing less than one lesion already makes its way into the food chain. It is also the case that milk from an infected cow is safe to drink after it has been pasteurised. Therefore, there is no reason why pasteurised milk and vet-inspected meat should not be available for export from vaccinated cattle. I think the House may find that it already is.

After the pathetic European response to the horsemeat scandal, I do not believe that the European Union has a strong case to ban our exports. The response from the European Commission is unhelpful and is another reason why, if for no other, we should leave the EU. I hope the Secretary of State will join me in campaigning to leave the European Union and one of the benefits will be that we can vaccinate our cattle.

If we are going to base our decisions on science, we should ensure that the scientists have been heard.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

No.

Today’s debate is unworthy of a Division and I hope that the House will not divide until it has had time to read and digest the report.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Wiggin]

No.

If the EU is going to ban our exports if we vaccinate, it should do so on proper health grounds. It will not be able to achieve that. If the Opposition object to scientific pilot schemes, they must apply the same science to badgers and to cattle equally. For 14 miserable years they did not do that. If the Government want to beat this disease scientifically, they will have to analyse what the scientists say and allow us to act within the law.

It is worth pointing out that there are many who believe that if the pilot culls are a failure, we should revisit gassing. I hope I am not alone in saying that I would hate to see that. Ultimately the House should unite in wanting to see healthy badgers, healthy cattle and healthy people. Unless we are consistent, scientific and determined, we shall be beaten by a minuscule bacteria, and this is not a fight we can afford to lose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As DEFRA has not released its report, it would be demeaning to the House to have a Division on this issue. Is it your view that Mr Speaker’s ruling should be maintained—that is, that if a Member shouts, he should vote in the way that he shouts?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You know very well, as I do, that if a Member shouts one way, they should not vote the other way, but they could abstain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Let us look at the facts on food price affordability. In 2008, the poorest 20% of households were spending 16.8% of household income on food. In 2012, they were spending 16.6%, so the truth is that the poorest households are spending roughly the same amount of their household income now as they were under the previous Government. The Government have a number of projects to help them. Through the healthy start scheme, the Government are providing a nutritional safety net in a way that encourages healthy eating, which has helped more than half a million pregnant women and children under four years old who are disadvantaged and come from households on very low incomes. We also have a number of other projects under way.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

4. What his policy is on vaccinating cattle against TB.

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

In his letter of 14 January 2013 to the Secretary of State, Commissioner Tonio Borg said that in order to provide answers to the still open scientific questions on TB vaccination, substantial experimental research and large-scale, long-lasting field trials were needed. That experimental research is under way and we will commission the detailed design of the necessary field trials in the coming months.

[Bill Wiggin]

In 2017, I hope that the Secretary of State and I will be campaigning to leave the European Union. When we succeed, the excuse that it is the EU that is preventing us from vaccinating our cattle will no longer be valid. Will he ensure that his Department is ready to vaccinate cattle when we leave?

[George Eustice]

I hope that we will be able to reform the European Union and make it fit for purpose in the 21st century and campaign to stay in. On the point my hon. Friend makes, the European Commission set out the steps that would be needed to be taken in order for it to make proposals for new EU rules allowing trade in vaccinated cattle. Its tentative time line suggests that that would not be before 2023. We may be in a position to commence field trials next year. The trials will take between two to five years, and there will be a further two to three years to agree for trade in cattle to take place in the European Union. In reality, it will most likely be 2023, which underlines the importance in the meantime of our using every tool open to us to bear down on this terrible disease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

T5. My hon. Friend the farming Minister will know that, though it may enrage Labour Members, it will be very popular with farmers when we amend legislation to allow more than two hounds to flush foxes to guns. When does he think that will happen?

[George Eustice]

The Government have had representations from a number of Welsh farmers about the problems of predation, and there has been a proposal that the legislation be amended to increase the number of dogs that can be used for flushing out. We are looking carefully at the issue, and we will let the House know when we reach any conclusions.

Flooding (Somerset)

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to repeat that it is our clear intention to dredge the Tone and the Parrett as soon as it is safe to do so. That will be conducted by the Environment Agency. It is looking at technologies now. Part of the plan is for routine maintenance to be carried out in future years by the internal drainage boards, which do a very good job and have many experienced local people on them. That is absolutely our intention. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the banks are not safe at the moment, so if we are to use any technologies immediately, they will have to be vessel-borne.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lessons that are coming out of the horror in Somerset are equally applicable across the whole country? Will he ensure that the Environment Agency starts to do the things that he has been talking about so well?

[Mr Paterson]

I stress again that this is a team effort. The Environment Agency has done a great job at protecting 1.1 million properties. However, it is quite clear from going around the counties of rural England, including Herefordshire and Berkshire, that there is exasperation at the lack of work on low-risk rural waterways, which stopped under the last Government. It is clear that that work is much better done by local people. It should be carried out by local landowners in co-operation with IDBs and local councils. That is why I started the seven pilots. We want to apply the lessons from those as quickly as possible across rural England.

Rural Communities

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and indeed the other members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—I want to be inclusive—for the report. I thank the Committee, and all those who have an interest in these matters, for bringing forward evidence and engaging with the Government on a number of other areas.

I disagree with a number of the points that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made, which I will come to later, but I agree that there is sometimes an artificial divide between urban and rural areas when it comes to service provision. The fact is that both rural and urban areas depend on each other for different services, whether outdoor activities, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), the natural capital that is cared for and provided, the food that is grown and all the opportunities provided in rural areas, or the economic and other activities provided in urban areas, such as industrial activities, which support rural areas. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right about that artificial divide, although I disagree with him on many other points and will come to them in due course.

Rural growth is a key priority for DEFRA, just as growth in general is for the Government. The Government have placed a strong emphasis on unlocking the potential of rural communities and businesses to allow them to grow and thrive sustainably. We have established five pilot rural growth networks aimed at tackling the barriers to economic growth in rural areas, such as the shortage of work premises, slow internet connectivity, fragmented business networks, competitiveness, skills and support for micro-enterprises.

Several hon. Members mentioned the resourcefulness and resilience of rural communities. For example, we heard about what is going on in High Peak to provide community facilities and safeguard resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about rural life in general and the great contribution that people in rural areas make to the wider economy, something that I think we should all reflect on and celebrate in this debate.

The pilot rural growth networks expect to create up to 3,000 new jobs and support up to 700 new businesses through a local approach to local issues, but their legacy will go beyond that. We are evaluating the lessons they learn and will share them with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities. LEPs are working with local partners, including those with rural economic and social interests, to agree draft European structural investment fund strategies. DEFRA is discussing the development of those strategies to ensure that they give appropriate consideration to rural economies. It is absolutely right that some LEPs are very rural in focus while others have a balance between urban and rural. We must ensure that the rural interest is at the forefront as they introduce their strategies.

DEFRA’s rural development programme for England has invested more than £400 million in projects, created over 8,500 new jobs and safeguarded a further 9,700. An impressive area of delivery, and certainly one that has helped bring forward the local engagement that other Members have talked about, is the 64 LEADER local action groups in England. They were allocated £137.9 million from the total £3.7 billion of the current programme. They are on target to spend that in full by the end of the programme. Their key achievements include over 1,000 civil society representatives involved; over 4,200 projects approved; over 21,000 training days delivered; over 2,600 jobs created; 700 micro-enterprises supported; and nearly 200 new micro-enterprises created. There are other sources of funding from other routes, whether the public sector or charitable sources, that unlock the potential of the community schemes that hon. Members have talked about, which will make significant changes in their communities.

Under the new rural development programme, which will run from 2014 to 2019, we will transfer 12% from direct payments to go towards environmental, farming competitiveness and rural growth schemes in England. That is a significant change in the way we administer CAP money and it is important that we get the change right. In 2016 we will review the demand for agri-environment schemes and the competitiveness of English agriculture with the intention of moving to 15% for the final two years of this CAP period. The overall investment equates to £3.5 billion for environmental and rural development schemes over the next seven years. That means that, even with a smaller overall CAP budget, the Government will be spending a bigger proportion on the environment than before.

We want growing the economy to be an important part of that. There will be a meaningful role for LEPs to help deliver growth. Some 13% of the new rural development programme funds will be spent on growth-focused schemes. Some 5%—£177 million—will be allocated to LEPs through the growth programme, with LEADER and farming and forestry competitiveness being allocated around 4% each, or around £140 million.

Many hon. Members spoke about the delivery of rural broadband and mobile communications. Indeed, we must remember that the report was from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, not the Welsh Affairs Committee, because so many hon. Members from Wales spoke. There was a certain commonality in the contributions we heard from across the United Kingdom on connectivity and the need to ensure that we get the injection of investment absolutely right. It is important for unlocking the potential of rural economies and communities. We know, for instance, that online small businesses, whether rural or urban, grow between four and eight times faster than their offline counterparts, and broadband allows more services to be delivered directly into the home. We heard how important that is in many contributions from both sides of the House.

The Government are investing £530 million to 2015 through Broadband Delivery UK. BDUK’s rural broadband programme, which is being delivered by local bodies, will deliver superfast broadband of 24 megabits a second and above to 90% of premises in each local authority area. The remaining 10% hard-to-reach areas will receive standard speed broadband of at least 2 megabits a second.

A number of hon. Members asked how representatives can access more detailed aspects of those programmes. I urge those who have concerns about how the programme is running in general to write to me or to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). If there are specific issues, they should raise them with the local delivery bodies to ensure that their voices are heard. I think that BT, which has been mentioned, will welcome engagement with local representatives on how the programme will make a difference in those areas and what the expectations should be.

Under the rural broadband programme, the pace of progress is accelerating, as 42 out of 44 local projects are contracted, which accounts for 98% of the Government funding. We are currently connecting 10,000 rural properties a week. It is anticipated that the figure will rise to around 25,000 per week by the spring and 40,000 per week by the summer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton talked about the smaller rural community broadband fund and asked what progress DEFRA was making with delivering the scheme. We have approved five projects, starting with Rothbury in Northamptonshire, which got its first live cabinet in time for Christmas—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), was there at the time. We continue to work hard with BDUK, local bodies and community groups to develop the remaining projects. Local authority-led projects have until 28 February to complete their applications. Of course, there are important things to consider to ensure that we get the best value for money in all those projects, so we need to consider each one carefully. Universal coverage of 2 megabit broadband is expected by 2016.

I will turn to local government finance settlements. The Committee, and indeed many hon. Members, highlighted their concerns about the system for calculating local government finance. Addressing the needs of rural and urban authorities is a difficult balancing act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out, I have been very much engaged in that from the Back Benches and continue to be in government, talking with colleagues, communities and local government about how the funding formula works and the implications for rural communities.

The Efficiency Support for Services in Sparse Areas grant of £8.5 million during 2013-14 helped the top quartile of rural authorities by sparsity of population. The Government will be providing further support worth £9.5 million so that the most rural local authorities can drive forward efficiencies in their areas. That is an increase on the grant paid for this purpose in 2013-14, and it offers further protection. Let me be clear, however—I hope that my hon. Friend would not expect me to say anything else, given my past interest in this area prior to coming into Government—that we need to change the approach towards assessing the longer-term funding needs of rural local authorities, and we must bear that in mind as we move forward. We need to consider how we support rural local authorities in increasing their income from business rates retention, and we need to develop a longer-term solution to supporting the transition.

On rural-proofing, I want to leave the House under no illusion. The Government take rural-proofing incredibly seriously, and my ministerial colleagues and I champion it strongly across Government. We are supported in that role by DEFRA’s centre of rural expertise, the rural communities policy unit, which was mentioned extensively in the report. Lord Cameron’s review of rural-proofing will report separately from what we are doing in Government. In a new element, all Government Department annual reports and accounts will report on their rural-proofing activities. It is very important to DEFRA that we have that level of engagement in reporting back, and I welcome it. At our last count, we were actively assisting other Departments with over 60 different policy areas to ensure that rural dimensions are being appropriately and proportionately considered. Importantly, we do not do this in isolation from the rural communities and businesses we serve. I am grateful to the EFRA Committee for recognising DEFRA’s comprehensive engagement framework with key rural stakeholders and civil society groups and representatives.

I should like to highlight some particular examples of this. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned education funding. The Government recognise that in some areas, particularly where schools are small, it is unreasonable to require pupils to travel long distances to alternative schools. That is why, following a review of the funding arrangements conducted with DEFRA’s rural communities policy unit, the Department for Education announced in June that it would allow local authorities to use a new sparsity factor when allocating funding. The Government have made it clear that the sparsity factor will be kept under review to consider whether adjustments need to be made in 2014-15 and as we move towards a national funding formula in the longer term.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

All the aspects that the Minister has mentioned so far will really help rural communities such as my constituency. On school transport, the Government have been generous in funding new places in rural schools, but the local authority has cut the transport budget allowing people to take advantage of those new places. Is there anything he can do to allow county councils to use that money to ensure that children get to school safely?

[Dan Rogerson]

Local authorities have a statutory role in the provision of school transport, but there are a number of other ways in which they can engage with the wider transport infrastructure in their areas to provide opportunities not just for school transport but for all the other vital forms of transport that we have been debating.

I agree that providing affordable homes is crucial in allowing rural economies to grow and welcome the fact that this Government are investing in affordable housing. When the hon. Member for Ogmore discussed this, he did not say that under the previous Government the number of affordable socially rented homes that were available fell, a trend that this coalition Government will reverse through the investment that we are making. It is important to recognise that that applies in rural areas as well as in urban areas. The Government support rural exception sites, which, as hon. Members will know, are small sites that can be used for affordable housing in perpetuity, making a crucial difference.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was the first speaker to refer to post offices and postal services in general—a very important matter. On 27 November, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced a further £640 million for the post office network to complete its network transformation programme. That programme is not suitable for about 3,000 post offices. Those branches predominantly serve small, often remote communities, and they may be the last shop in the village. For the first time in post office history, the updated programme specifically allocates £20 million to this part of the network. As a Member of Parliament during the previous Government’s period in office, I saw what happened when their network review closed so many rural post offices and the effect that that had on those communities. We are now looking at opportunities to secure the network that now exists to make sure that we are not dropping back into that territory.

Returning to rural transport, which I mentioned briefly in reply to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is no longer in his place, the Government have distributed £20 million to rural transport authorities in England to support the development of community transport schemes, which provide services that are vital in many rural areas. We are funding more than 20 Wheels to Work schemes through the local sustainable transport fund. Those schemes enable many young people to access employment and training opportunities. We have protected the statutory entitlement to concessionary bus travel, ensuring that older people can maintain greater freedom and independence. As we stated in the Government response to the EFRA report, the Department for Transport has committed to setting up a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the changes to the bus service operators grant.

The issue of fuel was regularly raised, with regard to transport fuel and the fuel duty discount. I am pleased that hon. Members across the House acknowledged what the coalition Government have done in opening the door to the concept of recognising rurality and the challenges faced in relation to fuel prices. Many rural communities aspire to explore whether the scheme is a good fit for them, with processes that are appropriate for their areas. Several Members, particularly those from west Wales, suggested that it could operate slightly differently. I am sure that if they write to my colleagues in the Treasury about how they think it could be changed, their contributions can be borne in mind.

Several hon. Members talked about domestic fuel and the people in communities in rural areas who are off the gas grid. We are working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change to support the promotion of buying groups to bring down costs for gas and oil. On winter fuel payments, as part of the ministerial round table on heating oil and liquid petroleum gas, we are working with DECC and the Department for Work and Pensions to look into bringing payments forward. A number of hon. Members raised that issue.

Badger Cull

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

I will not give way at the moment.

I wonder what on earth the Secretary of State is doing. I am reminded of Einstein’s definition of madness, which is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Lord Krebs, to whom the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) referred earlier, seems to agree with me. He oversaw the randomised badger culling trials in the 1990s and has labelled this cull a “complete fiasco”, saying that it has been “even crazier” than anticipated. After the schemes in Somerset and Gloucester missed their targets, he said that

“there is no point in doing something if it is the wrong thing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2013; Vol. 750, c. GC144.]

It could not be clearer. I am not saying that the Secretary of State is mad, but he is deluded if he thinks he can pull the wool over the British people’s eyes. The cull in Gloucestershire failed to meet the Government’s target of a 70% kill rate—it only managed 39%, as we know.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I wish to take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about doing the same thing over and over again. My guess is that there are about 365,000 badgers in this country, and they would need to be vaccinated annually. I would like to support vaccination, but how on earth will we vaccinate 1,000 badgers a day just to keep the population healthy?

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating slightly. That will be necessary only in the hot spot areas. However, I will explain in a moment why vaccination is a far better and less costly route.

The Secretary of State’s attitude to the badger cull is deluded. We know that the Government’s cull has failed, we know that it makes matters worse, we know that it is cruel and inhumane and we know that vaccinating badgers is cheaper and more effective. The vaccination of badgers in Wales seems to be working. How it will work in the future remains to be seen, but we think it will work better than the cull.

The magazine Farming Monthly National said:

“Out of nearly 1200 badgers caught in Wales for vaccination, none showed any signs of illness.”

That is revealing, given that the Secretary of State said that badgers are “spewing out disease”. When he was probed on that claim, it turned out to be anecdotal hearsay from the National Farmers Union, which represents only 18% of farmers, and the people who were employed to do the culling. There is no evidence for his claim.

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, the Government said:

“TB testing in culled badgers is not being undertaken as a routine procedure”.

They went on to say that

“the numbers of badgers found to be carrying TB is not known at present.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 714W.]

They do not even know whether any of the badgers that they have killed so far were carrying TB. They are ignoring all the evidence. It seems that the Government are blind to this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We have a badger vaccine deployment fund of approximately £250,000 a year. Uptake has been slightly disappointing so far. We must also recognise that vaccination does not provide protection to all badgers, even once they are vaccinated. In Northern Ireland, a trial has been discussed, described as, “Test, Vaccinate and Remove”, meaning that the badgers are first trapped, then tested, and the ones that are not infected are vaccinated and released and the ones that are infected are culled. That test is only 50% effective, so for every infected badger that is culled, another is pointlessly vaccinated and released back into the wild to spread the disease further.

[Bill Wiggin]

My constituents are deeply concerned about the issue, as everyone knows. We have to explain to farmers why someone is taking away the cattle, but doing nothing about the badgers at the end of the field. What progress is the Minister making on a DIVA test?

[George Eustice]

We are working on a DIVA test, but, as hon. Members pointed out, it will probably take eight to 10 years to get a licensed vaccine for cattle.

We are constantly refining cattle movement controls, which a number of Members have mentioned. In 2012, we introduced tough new controls on cattle movements and TB testing. In January this year, we significantly expanded the area of the country that is subject to annual testing and further tightened cattle movement controls, including the conditions that need to be met before TB breakdown herds can restock. Last month, we launched the risk-based trading scheme to encourage farmers to share details of the bovine-TB disease history of the cattle they sell, and to encourage buyers to act on that information. Less than two weeks ago, we went further.

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—I very much enjoyed her speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on calling the debate.

I should mention that I keep Hereford cattle, which are the finest, tastiest, most adaptable and most popular breed in the world—no need for any of these Welsh Whites.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Wiggin]

I would be delighted to give way after challenging the hon. Gentleman.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Welsh Whites are a very small breed, with little panda eyes that look up at you. It would be very difficult to eat them, because they are gorgeous little creatures.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is difficult to justify having these wonderful animals if they have no purpose. One key point is that if we did not have a healthy, nutrient-rich diet, largely from meat, it would be hard to justify having these wonderful breeds, from many different parts of the United Kingdom, which would be a great loss.

There are two primary causes of climate change: one is chopping down trees in our rain forests to plant soya beans, and we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of that industry; the other is emissions from the front and the back of the cow, which release methane into the atmosphere. While the emissions from our cattle are regrettable, we have taken steps to control the phenomenon, and we are currently taking further action.

A report called “The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap—Phase 1”, from 2009, states:

“Steady improvements in beef and sheep production efficiency have taken place over the past decade, with 5% fewer prime animals required to produce each tonne of meat in 2008 than in 1998.”

Emission levels from British cattle have therefore been reduced due to lower cattle numbers.

Regardless of where the emissions come from, however, the inquiry undertaken by the all-party group has clearly highlighted the fact that there are specific issues surrounding the way in which we in England measure carbon emissions from grazing livestock on our farms. In some cases, we go so far as to disadvantage our farmers, our industry and even our country, in terms of its ability to meet the agricultural industry’s global targets. It is outrageous that there is no international consensus on sequestration, and I am sure the Minister will want to see one. Having a consensus is absolutely fundamental; indeed, there is an old saying: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” We have to move forward on that.

Britain excludes sequestration from its assessments, whereas France and Wales, which is next to my constituency, include sequestration. That means that when we make comparisons between the three countries and measure how close each is to reaching its targets, we in England find ourselves at a disadvantage. While the inquiry by the all-party group, which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, has told us many things we already knew, it has also revealed sequestration to be the primary issue of contention.

England has one of the most efficient livestock production systems in the world, in the form of our rain-fed pastures. Yet, grazing cattle and sheep comes in for undue negative criticism, with the focus fixed firmly on emissions from animals. Those animals actually have a positive part to play in landscape management and the utilisation of land that cannot, as many colleagues have said, be used for arable crops. Many fellow Members would support us in the view that our sheep and cattle contribute meaningfully to our environment, and the all-party group report rightly acknowledges that. One of the contentions revealed by the report is that if we, like France and Wales, took such issues into account, our carbon footprint could be significantly lower, and our farmers would be at less of a disadvantage.

The report suggests we need more robust scientific evidence and data to move the debate forward constructively. National Farmers Union climate change adviser Dr Ceris Jones acknowledged that the report highlights the exclusion of sequestration from the majority of our calculations of greenhouse gases. As the report recalls, “a number of witnesses” supported the idea that pasture land had the ability

“to sequester carbon from the atmosphere”.

It goes on to point to research being done in France by Professor Jean François Soussana on carbon sequestration, which may point to why several countries now include carbon sequestration in their calculations.

In my constituency, farming is a major employer and a huge part of the local economy. I therefore find very troubling anything that hampers my constituents or that might prevent their businesses from growing or from being as successful as they could be.

Carbon sequestration is set to be a significant issue for the industry, particularly because of the different attitudes towards it in different countries. As I explained, those differences could have a significant negative impact on our industry. If we could offset the methane emissions from grazing livestock, as happens in France and Wales, that could have a positive implication for our understanding of our livestock’s carbon footprint. Additionally, as the report explains, that

“would render the current PAS 2050 model incorrect and would mean we should move to a model closer to that used in France.”

Before such a drastic move is contemplated, and with the science unresolved, further investigation should, of course, be our first course of action. Dr Luke Spadavecchia, of DEFRA, has explained to the all-party group the complexity of the sequestration calculation. Even if the science on sequestration was unanimous, however, the inquiry would still have raised several valid and vital points on, for example, sustainability and the role our cattle and sheep play in feeding the world’s growing population.

Ultimately, there is still much debate to have on this matter. I hope the inquiry and our subsequent debate will enable us to find common ground so that we can move forward and give our farmers the best opportunity to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely support the move, if people are going to eat meat, towards locally-sourced, sustainable, grass-fed cattle. That is far more environmentally friendly, in view of issues such as food miles; and, in the case of organic meat, issues of pesticides and fertilisers are also addressed. I support that. It is not the ideal solution, but it is a lot better.

I had a piece published on the topic in the New Statesman last week; 97% of the world’s soya crop goes to farmed animals. As to the question of how to feed the world without a partly meat-based diet, it is estimated that we could eliminate most of the worst of world hunger with about 40 million tonnes of food, but at the moment nearly 20 times that—760 million tonnes—is fed to animals each year. My article was to an extent a criticism of the Enough Food IF campaign, which is about feeding the world and lobbying the G8 to address global hunger. The campaign criticises the fact that 100 million tonnes of crops go towards biofuels, and says that biofuels are a bad thing; but, as I have said, 760 million tonnes go towards feeding animals and it seems completely silent on that point. That needs to be addressed when we consider the devastation of the rain forest and its environmental impact.

[Bill Wiggin]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the substitution of animal feed for human food, but she must understand that—even if the crop is wheat or soya beans—not all that food would be suitable for human consumption. Therefore, even in the ideal world that she hopes to live in, what she envisages would not mean we could not have animals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I understand the nuanced argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I still think that there is a compelling case, and I want to deal now with some reports.

It seemed to me that during the debate there was a herd of elephants in the room, which hon. Members were not mentioning. No reference was made to other very authoritative reports, which have said there is a serious issue to be addressed. In my 2009 debate, I cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report of 2006, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which makes compelling reading. It concluded:

“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

I will not cite all the figures that I quoted in my debate, because people will be familiar with the fact that it takes 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a delight to serve in a debate under your stewardship, Mrs Brooke, and to respond briefly, before the Minister takes the stage. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and other members of the all-party group on beef and lamb for their work on the report. I note for the record my membership of the group, although I can take no credit or praise for this report. I was absent from the proceedings during witness statements and so on. My absence in no way diminishes the report; in fact, it probably strengthens it.

I will mention the contributions before I make some detailed points. The chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, went in some detail through the report, which I will discuss in a moment. I should make it clear that I used the example of Welsh White cattle for a particular reason. He made the point ably in his contribution that we should consider not only issues such as carbon reduction, emissions and sequestration, but the wider benefits of particular livestock in certain landscapes and environments.

The reason why I gave the curious example of the fairly rare Welsh White—a small beef animal—is that its footprint is slightly lighter than other cattle but slightly heavier than sheep. It does a perfect job of breaking up the upland peat bogs of the Plynlimon hills, but not breaking up the ground too much. Combined with excellent work done by local farmers and the Wildlife Trusts to re-block some of the drains dug during the second world war to dry out the land so crops could be planted, which never quite worked successfully, the breed is now yielding great dividends. The right creature in the right habitat helps biodiversity as well.

The hon. Gentleman made the point well in his contribution that there is a wider range of issues, some of which are interlinked. Often, we talk about carbon on this side and biodiversity on the other side. We need to pull the strands together intelligently.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a varied contribution. He always speaks well, and not only about the interests of Northern Ireland and his constituents. He rightly raised food security and food production, as did other Members. We are focusing increasingly on meeting the need for good nutrition and affordable food on the tables of a growing population both within this country and in terms of exports. Export markets are growing for Northern Ireland, Scottish, Welsh and English produce.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) added an extra dimension to the debate when she said that we need to consider both sides of carbon. Again, that came out in the all-party parliamentary group’s report: this is not simply about carbon emissions, but about sequestration within different types of landscape. The point was well made, and I will return to it.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) made a good contribution, although I should pick him up on one point. He referred to Wales, “which is next to my constituency.” It is a little larger than simply being next to his constituency; it is next to a few others as well. I understand that Wales is often used as a unit of international measurement, but I would not want to think that it is only the size of North Herefordshire. It is a little larger.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is definitely still next door to my constituency, though.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It is, but it is next door to a lot of others as well. We may be slightly smaller than other countries, but we are a proud nation, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly challenged the farming sector with its responsibilities in terms of climate change and carbon emissions, saying that it could do more. She was eminently reasonable on the contribution that farming could play as part of the wider UK and global drive to tackle global emissions. She also widened the debate to the issue of biofuels versus food, which other hon. Members also raised, and to diet and other reports that challenge or contradict what we are debating. Those reports were useful for this debate and probably deserve separate debates, which I am sure she will seek; it is right to have challenge.

This is more than simply an applied academic argument about how we measure and compare the carbon footprint of livestock. It is about effective measures to improve the performance of different types of farms in different farming sectors, and we can seek that improvement only if we measure the right thing in the right way and make like-for-like comparisons both within the UK and its devolved Administrations and internationally. As hon. Members have said, it is also a matter of food security and providing for the demands of a growing global population, and as I am sure other members of the all-party group are aware, it is a matter of reputational importance to the livestock sector. It recognises the work that the sector can do and its role in reducing carbon emissions, while putting good, wholesome British food on consumers’ plates in all parts of the UK and increasingly in other countries, which demand outstanding produce from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The all-party group’s report raises questions about the accuracy and appropriateness of measurement, the lack of consensus on standard methodologies of measurement and the lack of comparability between measurement approaches domestically and internationally, as well as about how carbon sequestration can and should be taken into account with a standard approach. The all-party group has done a great service to the House by raising those issues, so that the Minister can respond to them domestically and internationally. I will turn briefly to some of the specific issues.

I am grateful for the information provided to all hon. Members by the National Farmers Union and others. One interesting dilemma within the discussions on carbon emissions and sequestration is illustrated in upland hill farming, which is part of my family background. The NFU makes the good point that such farmers could be particularly disadvantaged by how we currently measure, assess and compare carbon impacts. Some of the hill farms are on poor land without any real alternative uses. Such farming is also extensive in nature; it takes far longer to raise lambs to carcase weight. The finishing period is far longer, and generally, the vegetation and forage are of a much lower standard. That has a significant impact. When we look at the farming sector as a whole and say, “You’re not doing well enough,” the question comes back, “What alternatives do you have for that environment?” It is an interesting question. I am glad that I am speaking up for sheep, rather than cattle, after my earlier intervention. As we mentioned, it is also a question of the benefits for landscape management and biodiversity of having the right livestock in the right place.

On the international comparators raised by the all-party group and others, can the Minister give us an update on what progress has been made towards standardising international measures? What is happening on the common carbon footprinting methodology for the lamb meat sector? What is happening on the slightly earlier-stage beef life-cycle assessment white paper by the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef? How are those things progressing? They and similar transnational interventions might provide some solutions to what the all-party group seeks.

Some issues raised by the NFU include the uncertainty still associated with agricultural emissions—it existed while we were in government, and it is still ambiguous now—the need for good data about the wider aspects of on-farm activity, the choice of unit used to assess on-farm activity and carbon emissions, where the boundary lies and whether farm-specific mitigation measures should be part of the overall measure of a farm’s carbon impact. If a farm takes measures, including on renewable energy and so on, should they be included?

Finally, the NFU has broadly welcomed the recent call by the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board to develop and deliver a computer-based environmental impact calculator for use by UK farms. It sees that as a way to achieve less ambiguity and more confidence. Will the Minister give us an update on that as well?

I thank the all-party group for its report and for securing the debate this afternoon. The right questions are being asked, and I am sure that the Minister will give us some assurance on them. Much more work needs to be done on measurement and comparability, but while recognising the real issues of food security and affordability, there are also things on which the farming sector—if we can get the measurements right—will want to deliver. Such work will show not only what a good job farmers do, but what more they can do to help us in our drive to tackle carbon emissions and climate change.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I think that this is the first time I have done so, so it is a particular pleasure. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only on securing the debate and his contribution to it, but on the work of the all-party group for beef and lamb, which he chairs, and its report.

I am going to introduce a few figures, which are important to the debate. It is a fact that man-made greenhouse gas emissions represent a serious threat of climate change. Inescapably, agriculture directly accounts for about 10% to 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. More widely, including other emissions associated with agricultural production, such as land use change, energy for fertiliser production and fuel for transport and refrigeration of products, emissions from global food production are far more significant, perhaps totalling 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, the figures are rather different. Agriculture accounts for about 9% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and overall emissions from the agriculture sector have decreased by 20% since 1990, while we expect them to decrease by 12% from 2010 levels by 2025. I hope that that puts the issue into context.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), stressed the importance in discussion of such matters of recognising balance—there are downsides, but also upsides. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned, for example, the value not only of biodiversity but of having a thriving and positive economy in the country. Getting the balance right is important, therefore, and is exemplified in specific cases. The hon. Member for Ogmore told us about his little, sad-looking White cattle in Plynlimon. I seem to remember that Plynlimon is the wettest place in the United Kingdom—it has the highest rainfall—so perhaps that is why the cattle look sad: they are sitting at the source of the great River Severn and feeling sorry for themselves, because it is raining. Nevertheless, he made an important point about needing the right animals in the right places to achieve the right results.

To return to our carbon footprint in this country, UK beef and lamb producers are among the most efficient globally. In 2010, the EU Joint Research Centre published a report showing that British beef is produced with less than half the emissions per kilogram than beef from Brazil. Those results are supported by research undertaken by Ricardo-AEA and Cranfield university, which reported that beef from Brazil is produced with 33% greater emissions than beef from the UK. The point I am making, because many Members have been concerned about what carbon footprinting is all about, is that it can be a useful tool to help businesses identify inefficiencies and emissions hot spots in order to improve not only environmental performance, but business efficiency and competitiveness.

I was slightly concerned by the contributions of some Members, who suggested a serious detriment to agricultural producers in this country, which carbon footprinting is not. Carbon footprints are not used in international policy making; they are tools for the benchmarking and marketing of products. In England and Wales, we do not have Government targets for mitigation in the agricultural sector. International emission comparisons are made using greenhouse gas inventories that are compiled under strict guidance issued by the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. It is important to recognise that carbon footprinting can help the industry to meet not only our societal needs, in dealing with greenhouse gases, but its business needs, in doing the right thing. Carbon footprints are not intended—I can certainly foresee no such intention—to be introduced as targets or as something that individual producers must fulfil.

Nevertheless, the industry wants to do better. The UK beef and sheep industry, therefore, is seeking further emission reductions through the EBLEX product road maps, recognising that measures to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions generally increase business efficiency and competitiveness. My Department welcomes such developments as part of the wider growth strategy for the sector.

The APG made some specific points. Its report draws attention to the problems of standardisation for carbon footprinting of the beef and sheep sector. Under the previous Government, DEFRA worked with the British Standards Institute and the Carbon Trust to develop the PAS 2050 standard for carbon footprinting and to encourage best practice. PAS 2050 aims to simplify carbon footprinting so that it can be carried out by a wider range of practitioners, and provides guidance to ensure greater consistency in approach.

The report is right to point out, however, areas of uncertainty where flexibility is needed, so PAS 2050 is not prescriptive for individual products, although it includes the potential for industry to develop product guidelines known as “supplementary requirements” to ensure that consistent approaches are used and to improve comparability of results. The dairy sector, for example, has produced such guidance via DairyCo, in partnership with the Carbon Trust. DairyCo has also worked with the International Dairy Federation to promote international standardisation. EBLEX is, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore, discussing international standards for carbon footprinting beef production systems with the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative or SAI Platform, a food-industry initiative supporting the development of sustainable agriculture worldwide. Similarly, EBLEX is exploring options to develop international standards for lamb production.

The APG report also calls for improved accounting of soil carbon sequestration in carbon footprinting. PAS 2050 provides for the optional inclusion of soil carbon sequestration in carbon footprinting, but we might have a misunderstanding about the terminology, which I want to address. There is a distinction between carbon storage and carbon sequestration: carbon storage is carbon that is held by permanent pasture or any other land management system; and carbon sequestration is a process by which carbon is captured in that system.

Scientific understanding indicates that UK pastures represent a significant store of carbon, but do not tend to sequester additional carbon from the atmosphere. That is where the distinction needs to be drawn. If we change land management, of course we have a change—perhaps a positive one, perhaps a negative one, but one that could be either sequestration or release of carbon—but, in a steady state, we do not have a movement of carbon on that basis. Where management practices are employed to increase soil carbon sequestration, the benefits are often small, uncertain and difficult to measure. Nevertheless, DEFRA has invested £390,000 in a project to improve carbon accounting under agricultural land management, including work to assess the extent to which agricultural land management can enhance carbon sequestration in the UK, the findings of which will support carbon footprinting studies. We expect the results to be published in the spring of 2014.

[Bill Wiggin]

My understanding of what the Minister said is that grassland is better storage than a sequestration process. However, the business of farming for cattle and sheep means that the carbon is captured by the grass and then moved along the food chain as the cattle eat the grass and become food and manure. That is the sequestration process, and that is why it is important to measure it.

[Mr Heath]

There is a constant store in any land management system. Any landscape feature, if it is not changed, will have a constant store, so there is a zero-sum gain. If the land is ploughed up or a different crop is grown, the equation may change and the position will be different. That is the simple point that I am making.

We want to continue to fund research into improving the sophistication and accuracy of carbon footprinting methods to support the industry and we have engaged actively in the production of internationally agreed standards for carbon footprints. Research under the UK’s agricultural greenhouse gas research and development platform is a £13.5 million initiative which, in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place at the moment, is shared with the devolved Administrations, so it is also relevant to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Its purpose is to improve the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture, and it will also provide underpinning evidence to improve the quality of carbon footprints.

Given the wide variety of production systems and processes in beef and sheep farming, carbon footprinting inevitably becomes part of the marketing mix, but as with other product information, the industry has a responsibility to be transparent about what it has and has not included in the analyses.

Common Agricultural Policy

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Last year, in its first report of the Session under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the EFRA Committee stated that DEFRA had

“to put the UK’s case that the CAP should support both the agricultural sector and provide environmental protection”

and do so by engaging with reliable allies in the EU and by having the resources to put the case effectively and persuasively, so it was sad to read this week that figures from Brussels showed that the Government had not so far succeeded and had failed to protect pillar two funding.

The National Farmers Union claims that the UK will now be allocated the lowest share of funds of all member states on a per-hectare basis, meaning significant reductions compared with the current budget. It also states that in the first year of the new programme the UK’s allocation of budget will be cut by 16% and that this figure will rise to 27% in the final year, meaning that by 2020 UK farmers will see less money coming back to the UK than they contributed to the pot through the compulsory EU modulation transfers this year. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that other countries, including France, Italy and Ireland, have all managed to get a more successful deal so far.

The former Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), echoed the concern that the Minister’s arguments will disadvantage English farmers, who will not be given a level playing field on which to compete. The Opposition want a level playing field and no advantage for our farmers.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I think the hon. Lady means that she does not want any disadvantage for our farmers. I hope she will take this opportunity to put the record straight.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I did not realise I had said that. I clearly meant that we did not want any disadvantage.

How can the Minister guarantee that UK farming will continue to deliver environmental and other public benefits with severe cuts to its pillar two funding? By failing to protect our farmers, the Government are putting at risk our food security, future environmental benefits, conservation, animal welfare standards and the successful promotion of access to the countryside. The Government’s current CAP negotiations are letting down not just our farmers and rural communities, but the whole country. They have to be much more effective and persuasive on our behalf.

Badger Cull

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

An effective Opposition would debate early-day motion 189.

I must draw to the attention of the House the fact that I keep pedigree Hereford cows. I test them annually and I have 13 of them. Without getting misty-eyed, they all have names and I am as fond of them as any person is of their pets. I want to protect them from disease, so I vaccinate them against every illness that I am allowed to vaccinate against, and would vaccinate against TB if it were legal. I follow the movement restrictions and I try to do all I can to prevent my cattle from being exposed to TB. I do not believe that that makes me any different from any of my constituents who farm.

I also care about other animals, and I remember the excitement I felt the first time I saw a wild badger. These are magical creatures of the dusk and I want to make it clear that I want the highest standard of care for the badger, just as I do for my own animals. Many of my kind-hearted, caring constituents have written to me asking me to vote against the cull, but I fear that that would cover only half of this enormous and unpleasant decision, the other half being the need to put diseased badgers out of their misery.

When Labour was in office, I was asked by a constituent to table a parliamentary question on advice on how to put down humanely an injured badger found on the side of the road. I was told that people should consult a solicitor before taking any action to put the badger out of pain. I do not believe that we should stand by when badgers are dying in agony.

[Sheryll Murray]

Has my hon. Friend heard that bovine TB has spread to domestic animals such as cats and dogs?

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: TB is found in hedgehogs, cats and dogs, and even sheep. It affects people, usually only those who drink unpasteurised milk. The disease can reach any species, because M. bovis is a species-jumping illness.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Given the devastation caused by the disease in our region and the area neighbouring our county, will my hon. Friend work with me and other neighbouring MPs to convince the Secretary of State that when the trials are successful they should be brought to our region—Herefordshire and Shropshire—as soon as possible?

[Bill Wiggin]

I would make the point that these are pilots. The Opposition have made it clear that they believe they are untested. Well, pilots are by definition untested. Once we have evidence that the proposal is effective, of course we can take informed decisions. There are 300,000 to 500,000 badgers in the UK, and they do well in areas such as our counties, where cattle thrive in some of the most beautiful countryside in the country. Herefordshire is one of those counties. The number of badgers exceeds the number of foxes, and they are most likely to be killed by disease or in road traffic accidents—some 50,000 a year are killed on our roads.

There are valid and worrying arguments about perturbation. The perturbation effect was confirmed by trials that used cage trapping. It is not clear whether it was the trapping or the killing of the trapped badger which caused the perturbation effect. That is a worrying challenge to the argument on vaccination. If perturbation is caused by trapping, vaccinating badgers that may already be infected is likely to be as risky as culling. How can we prove that that is right or wrong without electronic tagging? Badgers have little ears, and would lose an ear tag. I do not think that trimming their fur, which is being done at the moment, will provide the sort of robust scientific evidence that we need.

Despite that concern, I still favour badger vaccination for populations confirmed as healthy, and I would draw the attention of the House to the success of the Dutch in using vaccination to combat foot and mouth disease. We must use vaccination to protect healthy badger populations, particularly those that border infected populations. We know where the disease is not present, as we use cattle as an indicator species. Perhaps that is something the Government can address when they look at the efficacy of culling.

Vaccination costs money, and we spent £90 million on TB control measures in 2010-11, including testing and compensation. Every time a farm breaks down, it costs £34,000. Over the past 10 years, bovine TB has cost the British taxpayer £500 million—the equivalent of Birmingham’s 1,200-bed Queen Elizabeth hospital. If we do nothing and maintain the status quo, allowing the disease to spread once again, over the next 10 years the cost will be £1 billion, which is two 1,200-bed hospitals. Given the financial situation, I think all Members would agree that spending £1 billion on the effects of bovine TB without even trying to cull sick animals would be hard to justify even in the most urban constituencies.

The extremely charming and erudite badger cull opponent, Dr Brian May, asked:

“What would we do if this were our children? We would vaccinate…them.”

EU Council Directive 78/52/EEC explicitly prohibits vaccination against bovine TB in cattle. I therefore urge the Secretary of State not to make us wait until after the referendum in 2017. Surely this is a good reason for leaving the EU, if nothing else. What would be the cost of defying the directive? How much money would be put at risk? What would be lost if the EU banned our cattle exports? What would the French do about our dairy products? [Interruption.] I heard the Minister say, “Quite a lot”—he should tell us how much. Only the Government can tell us so we can have an informed debate. In the meantime, we should go ahead with planning for cattle vaccination.

The Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of State saying that a new vaccine was 10 years away. Ten years would mean £1 billion, or another 1,200-bed hospital. The Secretary of State needs to use every weapon that he can to fight the disease. All cattle have passports, so if we chose to vaccinate we could stamp the passport, “Vaccinated— not for export”. We could use the DIVA test when DEFRA was satisfied that it was proven.

I favour better tests. I received two letters from constituents whose cattle were slaughtered. Those cattle passed the skin test, but they were found to have lesions in more than one organ and were condemned. If they had failed the test, the owners would have received compensation, but because lesions were found they were condemned, and my constituents lost the total value of those cattle. We therefore need better tests. Let us introduce the PCR test that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State championed in opposition, and let us make sure that farmers can choose gamma interferon tests if they want them.

I do not want to see badgers suffer. The Secretary of State used to keep them as pets, and he does not want to see them suffer either. The badger is a much-loved animal, including in Kenneth Grahame’s “The Wind in the Willows”, but unfortunately badgers are a reservoir for TB. Reducing the infected population is the principle that we use for cattle, but which we ignore in wildlife. An experimental pilot cull in the highest-risk areas, with barriers, will prove or disprove whether culling is worth rolling out in other high-risk areas. People should realise that it is a scare tactic even to suggest that the whole badger population is at risk from culling. It is not. Only badgers in the highest-risk areas, where it is thought that one in three badgers has TB, would be culled. The total number at risk would be 5,000—less than 10% of the number of badgers hit by cars every year.

Mr Badger in “The Wind in the Willows” said:

“People come—they stay for a while…they build—and they go. It is their way. But we remain.”

Let us do all that we can to ensure that healthy badgers do.

Horsemeat

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

A range of mixed messages has been coming out of the Government. The Secretary of State said on Friday that he would be happy to eat processed beef products, but said on Sunday that doing so could be injurious to human health—[Interruption.] Well, he said that substances could be found that could be injurious to human health; I remember him saying it on the Iain Dale radio show.

The issue is difficult because yesterday the chief medical officer said that testing had never been done, because nobody wants to test humans to find out who is susceptible to the serious blood disorder aplastic anaemia—of course, it would be completely unethical and impossible to conduct such a test. The Government are in a difficult position. They may be trying to minimise public concern, but there is no safe dose of bute in humans.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as the responsibility now lies with the retailers to help restore confidence, there should be an aggressive campaign by all of them to assure their customers that all the beef that they buy from now on will be British? What more can be done so that customers have confidence that they really are eating British beef?

[Mary Creagh]

The beef on sale right now in UK supermarkets is probably of a higher quality than ever. Lots of local and independent butchers have seen a spike in trade lately as a result of what has happened.

I said that there was no safe dose of bute for humans. I am not a medical expert, but bute can cause serious adverse side effects so should be consumed only under medical supervision—[Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are chuntering already, Mr Speaker; that is not a good sign.

The positive test on Freeza Meats led the inspectors to the meat trader, Martin McAdam, who admitted to buying the meat from a UK company, Flexi Foods, in Hull last July. A spokesman for Mr McAdam said:

“That shipment was the first one that came to light. Subsequently other tests identified other shipments of meat.”

He has identified the names of other companies involved, and on Friday I received that information. These UK food companies may or may not have supplied suspect meat products to Mr McAdam, but while there is a question mark over them, the food industry has a right to have that information.

On Friday I wrote to the Secretary of State offering to share that information with him. When he replied to me yesterday, he urged me to hand it over to the police and to the Food Standards Agency, as I already had done, and I assume that he now has it. On Saturday, however, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Yesterday, when I asked him why not, he failed to answer. Why did he not tell the food industry where to look? Why has he not released those names to the public so that we can have full transparency on this problem? If the Government want the industry to test on the basis of risk, why did he not share the names of the companies at Saturday’s meeting?

In the FSA advice to the public sector issued at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, the Secretary of State laid the responsibility for food safety squarely on other people’s shoulders. He said:

“We are reminding public bodies (schools, prisons, hospitals, armed forces) of their responsibility for their own food contracts. We expect them to have rigorous procurement procedures in place with reputable suppliers.”

If he knows that there are problems with some UK-based companies, why has he not told head teachers, local authorities and hospital bosses about the companies that are being investigated? I am happy to give way now if he would like to intervene.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. This is a fraud on the public. It is wrong for them to be presented with a product and find out later that it is not what is claimed. There is no health issue here; this is an issue of fraud and labelling. With reference to his previous question, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to get the perpetrators—these criminals—and stop this practice.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Irish Food Safety Authority has been ahead of the Food Standards Agency every step of the way. The people I am concerned about are the British beef producers. Nobody seems to care about them. They have seen their products replaced by poor fakes. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it and how are these poor, besmirched people going to get their market share back?

[Mr Paterson]

I would like to correct my hon. Friend a little. The reason the Irish agency picked up this issue in the Irish plant was that it had local intelligence that there was a problem. That is why it did a random check —I cleared that with Minister Coveney today. As far as I am concerned, my hon. Friend will find no stauncher supporter of British beef than the Secretary of State standing before him. We have splendid cattle, rigorous traceability systems, strictly run abattoirs and a splendid finished product.