Flooding

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We have provided £2.5 million to fire authorities to help on this issue. Under very difficult circumstances—I do not want to make tiresome political points, but we inherited them from the previous Government—we have managed to hold up the investment in flood defence schemes. We are looking at a 6% reduction over the whole spending period compared with that over the previous spending period, which under the current circumstances shows the priority we are giving to these schemes.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend carry out a full investigation into why maintenance is not always done properly, as that causes most of the flooding in my constituency? Will he also ensure that the Bellwin thresholds work for small county councils as well as for large ones?

[Mr Paterson]

Several Members have raised the question of keeping drainage channels clear. If my hon. Friend has specific examples, I urge him to take them up with his local officers in the Environment Agency, who understand the matter. If he does not like that, perhaps he will grab me directly after the statement.

Badger Cull

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I have great pride in declaring that I breed Hereford cattle, and even more pride in saying they all passed their TB test in September.

One of my constituents sent me a book called “The Geek Manifesto” about why we need more scientists in politics. That was very kind of him, and it was a very interesting book. It has served to show me, however, that our current debate highlights one of the problems with science and political discussion. Scientists are constrained in how they write their reports, which makes it too easy for people to quote from them to confirm their prejudices.

I had the privilege of meeting Professor Bourne and asking him how he would deal with TB if he were in charge. The gist of his answer was that he would not do as he did when he worked for DEFRA because the constraints put on him made for poorer science. I agreed with him, and he was good enough to point out the cost-benefit and animal welfare considerations and other barriers to pure research.

From 1992 to 2011, the number of cattle slaughtered annually as a result of TB has risen from 2,000 to 38,000. Therefore, the status quo is not working, so we can safely rule out the “do nothing” option.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who moved the motion, has just left her place, but—[Interruption.] I am very sorry; she is still present. In her speech, she barely referred to the current situation. Some 26,000 cattle had to be slaughtered last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) suggests, if the status quo continues, cattle will continue to be slaughtered, and that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: it is a tragedy not only for the cattle, but for the farmer, and it is also a great tragedy for badgers.

The figure that is hardest to ascertain is how many badgers catch this disease every year. I am not aware of any evidence, but what I do know is that badgers are tough and they can cope with this infection for some time. Some badgers first display lesions in their bladders and then, as the disease progresses, they develop in other organs. The badger will become increasingly sick and eventually be driven out of its social group. When that happens, the badger will leave the sett territory and wander into other badgers’ territories where it may have to fight, and fighting is bad, because the risk of passing the infection, through scratches and bites, increases greatly. That, too, is beyond dispute.

I remember tabling a written question some years ago asking what would be the right thing to do if someone were to find an injured badger by the side of the road. The answer that came back was: “Consult your lawyer before doing anything.” This situation cannot be allowed to continue. There needs to be a humane way of ending suffering—for badgers, not lawyers, of course!

I have real concerns about the skin test we currently use to identify the disease. Here is a challenge for the armchair scientists. If we carry on testing and culling cattle, we will succeed in breeding cattle that do not show a reaction to the skin test. That is happening already. A constituent of mine tested her cattle, then took one for slaughter, only to find two lesions in different organs of that cow. That meant that the cow was unfit for human consumption and she lost her beef—which was probably worth about £2,000. She was very angry as her cow had been tested and passed and then been condemned. She wanted compensation from the Government for such a rotten test. She is right. This is another example of what happens if we carry on with the “do nothing” policy we have inherited.

As well as breeding test-proof cows, we are also allowing the disease to spread in the badger population. Not one of the letters I got from supposed friends of the badger pointed out that, by doing nothing, more badgers would become infected. In fact, many said that diseases in wild animals were no concern of theirs—and they call themselves animal lovers. I have nothing but contempt for people who allow badgers to suffer, which is why I pushed for longer prison sentences for genuinely evil people who bait badgers. Sadly, Opposition parties voted down an amendment I tabled on that.

The Dutch vaccinated “to die” during the foot and mouth outbreak, and that is based on the principle that a vaccinated animal must be traceable throughout its life. Perhaps we should be seeking permission to trial vaccination in areas that have not been selected for a trial cull, despite EU directive 78/52/EEC, article 13.

Beef suckler cows could be considered as “not for export”. By that, I mean a farmer may decide to keep a beef heifer calf for the rest of her life. She will never be sold for export, nor would her beef go into the export market. This would shift the decision on the risk of TB from DEFRA to the farmer. The risk would be the farmer’s. After a cow has passed a TB test, she would be vaccinated. Her passport would be stamped “TB vaccinated, not for export.” She would stay in the UK for the rest of her life. At the end of her days when she went for slaughter, if lesions were found in her body, the meat would be condemned and the farmer would lose the £900 or so she was worth as beef. That decision and risk would belong to the farmer. Any calf born could be tested, and bulls or cattle that would be worth exporting could be left unvaccinated. If the cow were to develop the disease, it would be picked up every time she had a calf, which is annually, and which is when we test for the disease.

Mathematically, every animal that is protected from the disease makes it harder for the disease to spread. Dairy cattle that are to be milked would not qualify for vaccination. Even if bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination is not much better than 50% or 60% effective, ways of reducing the costs, reducing the chances, reducing the possible vectors, and reducing the bill to taxpayers are all worth exploring. I urge the Government to look into this as one of the tools in the box.

Data from the randomised badger culling trial led to the conclusion that

“in the absence of transmission from infected badgers, only 3.4% of herds per annum would be expected to have a TB breakdown”

and that

“TB in cattle herds could be substantially reduced, possibly even eliminated, in the absence of transmission from badgers to cattle.”

I believe that vaccinating badgers could contribute to that, but there are constraints. We do not vaccinate infected cattle; we cull them, and we should do the same for infected badgers. One of the ideals would be a test for badgers. I urge the Government to look at having more research done into the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test at Warwick university. Accordingly, the British Veterinary Association announced its relief that there has been no U-turn on the badger cull. It reiterated that scientists think culling badgers does reduce levels of infection in cattle herds.

As I said, I am in favour of vaccinating cattle and badgers, but we are all aware that we cannot wait. I am aware of the hundreds of e-mails that colleagues have received, as I have, but they largely cite the alternative of vaccination as the answer to the TB problem. That sounds better in theory than it is in practice: the badger vaccine is injected and is therefore difficult to administer, as badgers need to be trapped; and it is difficult to record which badgers have been vaccinated, and some may be trapped again and again. Furthermore, EU legislation currently bans the cattle vaccine, as it can interfere with the tuberculin skin test. The Government are right to develop the DIVA test.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ideal in terms of getting rid of this problem is a cattle vaccine as well as a badger vaccine, but the problem is that we are a long way from both of those and a badger vaccine has no effect on badgers already infected with TB?

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do need a suitable vaccination to be developed and to be legal in the UK. No one wants to cull healthy badgers. So an experimental pilot cull in the highest-risk areas, with all the barriers to spreading the disease, such as coastlines or rivers, and with the local farmers in support, would prove whether culling was worth rolling out in other high-risk areas. People should be clear that the whole badger population is not at risk from culling, just those badgers that are highly at risk themselves of being infected.

Professor Bourne told me that a cull would not work the way he did it, so the Government have rightly changed the parameters. Culling will not be done in the way it was done before; it will not be done by the same people and it must be done to a level that commands scientific respect, within hard boundaries and in a specifically large area. Without vectors I believe the chance of infection drops dramatically, although M. bovis does live in soil for up to two years. If the chance of infection remains high and the pilot culls do not work, we would be glad it was only a pilot and we could then spend all our time and money on vaccinating alone—that is why we should vote down today’s motion. But vaccination is illegal under article 13 of EU directive 78/52/EEC, so that approach may not work either. That is why I think we should seek a derogation so that we can pilot vaccination in this country as well.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I can give the hon. Lady an accurate reply after the statement. The team in each pilot area is made up of roughly 60 people and the firearms licences had to be amended. I am happy to get back to her with the exact number.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Cattle owners like me will respect the Secretary of State for taking the advice of the NFU. However, will he take this opportunity to look at the compensation tables, which are causing so much misery to cattle owners who are receiving less than it costs to replace their cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend touches on a fraught area. I have cattle breeders in my patch who are producing the most wonderful pedigree cattle of the highest standard and getting adequate compensation is a constant problem. At the moment, we are paying the market rate, but I am happy to discuss the matter with him.

Dairy Industry

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I have waited two and a half years for this moment. It is really sad that, as a nation of tea drinkers, we cannot organise a fair price for the milk that goes into it. Even more sad is the fact that in 2003 and 2004, we compiled a Select Committee report on milk pricing, and very little has changed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly said, it is wrong that the middle men take the lion’s share of the profit from the milk market.

I am not sure whether it is on the record, but I own and breed Hereford cattle, and one big problem for dairy farmers is knowing that the product that they work so hard to produce is grossly undervalued by their customers. There is also another problem. Imagine how Robert Wiseman would feel if one of his beautiful black and white lorries was crushed every time it failed its MOT, or Sainsbury’s or Tesco had their building bulldozed if it failed a health and safety inspection. That is what happens when a farmer fails a TB test.

Probably no hon. Member has taken a TB test, so I will explain what it is like. It is quite easy on day one when a farmer puts his cattle through the crush because the cattle do not know what is going to happen. The vet comes along and very carefully and professionally gives the cattle two injections, one for avian TB and the other for bovine TB. The cows do not think much of that. Three days later, the vet comes back to feel whether the bovine bump is larger than the avian one and whether the cows have been exposed to tuberculosis. The cows do not know that they are not going to get jabbed, so they do not want to go through the crush and will fight to dodge it, and that, I am afraid, makes the whole process extremely dangerous.

My little boy, Jack, who is only seven, got kicked. My cows weigh 900 kilos, which is quite a lot more than me, and when they want to go somewhere, they will go. It is tough for farmers, and they get hurt. At least two of them have been killed in the time that I have been a Member of Parliament. It is extremely difficult for people who do not see this sort of activity to understand why the milk price has to reflect the risk that these people take, why it is so important that the Government continue with their agenda to fight this disease and to beat it, and why the Minister should go further than we are at the moment and allow the badger culls to go ahead and be trialled. I support the culls, because I have heard the misery of the farmers. They used to ring me up and cry down the phone when they started shooting their bull calves and I completely sympathised with them.

I have worked with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming and all sorts of other people in the efforts to stop the export of live calves. Blade farming has now done a great deal of good in providing a market for those dairy bull calves. When I was elected in 2001, we had the smell of burning flesh from the foot and mouth outbreak. Farmers have been through absolute hell. I urge the Minister to use all his charm, skill and wit to persuade the European Commission to allow vaccination for cattle as soon as possible. Even if badger culling succeeds, we can do more both for the people and for the cattle.

At the moment, farmers who live in a four-year testing area do not have to test for pre-movement. That is good, because the process is dangerous and unpleasant for both the farmer and his cattle. We need to recognise, too, the economic disadvantages of the process. It costs about £100 to do a pre-movement test for a cow. If the cow leaves a farmer’s property, it must be done and it lasts only for up to 60 days. A farmer may also wish to bring in a bull to see his cows. There is a lot more to this than just producing milk.

I have some fantastic dairy farmers, although they are smaller in number now. They are buying their cows from France because they are scared stiff of having TB on their farms. If they are shut down, their cattle will continue to produce calves and their sheds will become full. Calves need proper ventilation otherwise they get pneumonia. They have to be looked after properly. If a farmer is shut down they cannot do that, so their sheds fill up and they have more and more cattle on their property. The chance of a respiratory infection being passed through is increased and they are in a real mess. Again, that is more risk for the dairy farmer that is not reflected in the price.

Worse, farmers will be given the DEFRA compensation table, which has two sides—pedigree and non-pedigree. Hon. Members must urge their constituents to buy pedigree cattle because the compensation and the way in which it is calculated are significantly better. Moreover, it is taken over a six-month period instead of a one-month period. A pedigree heifer is worth £1,798 and a non-pedigree only £895, so a farmer will lose a great deal of money if they do not have pedigree stock. If they do not buy their pedigree stock from the UK, there is no market for those heifer calves that are being reared. Again, the vicious circle goes on. It is even worse than that because if the Government are paying more compensation, the price to the taxpayer goes up—we are heading now towards £100 million.

The dairy industry is racked not only by the price that we receive for milk but by the disproportionate risk that these people are taking, which is why the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on the risk to the families was so important. I urge the Government to do everything they can to support this vulnerable group of people.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their co-operation and for ensuring that everyone got to speak. There are now 15 minutes for those on the Front Bench, then I will ask Mr Neil Parish to wind up.