Wildlife Crime

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

As always, Mr. Benton, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the Liaison Committee for making time available to debate this important subject, and I especially thank my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee, all of whom I regard as friends. I know that only two or three of them can be here today, but they have all contributed to the report, which is a joint effort.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his new role. I have just had it confirmed that this is his first outing on the Front Bench in a debate, apart from Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions this morning. I look forward to hearing his views in his winding-up speech. We always remember the first time we do something; it may be that he will feel he can work with the Environmental Audit Committee on the first issue that he debated as Minister in Westminster Hall. As he is an ex officio member of our Committee, I look forward to seeing him help drive the sustainable development agenda. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to the Opposition Front Bench in his new role as shadow DEFRA Minister. It is also appropriate for me to say that we appreciated everything that the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), did on this agenda. I might not always have agreed with his views, but he was always courteous and constructive.

The background to this debate goes back to an Environmental Audit Committee debate in 2004, when we called on the then Government to restate their commitment to tackling wildlife crime and criticised their refusal to accept it as an issue deserving of committed policing resources. Our 2004 report made a real difference. It led to the setting up of the wildlife crime unit. When the Committee decided in the current Parliament to return to the issue, it was natural for us to stick to broadly the same remit as the previous Committee report. We wanted to concentrate on areas where we hoped our unanimous recommendations could make a difference.

In a relatively short time, wildlife crime has gone right to the top of the national and international agenda. I believe that it was right for the coalition agreement to refer to wildlife crime and the importance of tackling smuggling and the illegal trade in wildlife through the new border police force. Events have moved so rapidly that we now have a far greater understanding of how global wildlife crime and illegal wildlife trafficking are growing threats to nature, the livelihoods of the poorest and international security.

Accordingly, our current report began its life with a call for evidence in January 2012. In response, we received 57 separate written submissions from organisations and individuals, a relatively large number of submissions for a Select Committee, which reflects the importance that the public attach to the issue. We followed up the written submissions with seven oral evidence sessions, which, as might be expected, included Government agencies, Government and non-governmental organisations. We finally published our report in September 2012 and got the Government response in March 2013, so it all seems quite a long time ago.

It is worth putting on the record that we are disappointed by how long it took the Government to respond to our report’s recommendations; I see all my fellow Committee members nodding their heads. I suspect that one reason—the new Minister might help us on this—may have been some delay by the Home Office in getting back to what the Government were doing. I hope that in future, our recommendations will have speedier responses. After we got our response, it was some time before we could get a debate. What with the summer recess, we are having the debate today.

However, it does not matter that it has taken so long to have this debate, as there have been many significant developments in the short space of time since we reported. One is that the links between wildlife crime and serious organised crime are now being widely recognised around the world. It is clear that the poaching of endangered species has rocketed since 2007. The illegal wildlife trade is estimated to be the fifth most lucrative illicit transnational activity worldwide, worth up to £10 billion a year. We are told that increasingly, it is the preserve of organised crime gangs: international criminal networks with links to terrorism, drugs and rebel militia. It is a huge agenda.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her excellent chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee. At the high-level meeting on international poaching and wildlife trafficking in New York last month, it was encouraging that the UK supported the proposal for a UN special envoy on wildlife crime. During that meeting, the President of Gabon commented that illicit wildlife crime is, exactly as she said, not just an environmental problem but a serious threat to peace and security. Does she agree that that is yet another reason why the Government should now commit to funding our excellent national wildlife crime unit beyond 2014?

[Joan Walley]

As always, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. What President Obama has done, and what has been happening in the United Nations in the intervening time since our Committee reported, is making a huge difference. It shows that we must be able to lead internationally, nationally and locally. I keep returning to this point. If the Minister takes away one message from this debate, it should be that the national wildlife crime unit must be supported properly. I will come to those issues later in my report.

I welcomed the May 2013 UN commission on crime prevention and criminal justice agreement, which called on the nations of the world to consider wildlife and forest crime a serious form of organised crime. As we have just heard, that report to the UN Security Council highlighted the potential link between poaching and other organised criminal behaviour, including terrorism.

All that is happening on the world stage, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has prioritised it internationally. Meanwhile, we have many local organisations and non-governmental organisations doing the same thing nationally, operating here as Wildlife and Countryside Link agencies to press the Government to implement in full the recommendations in our report. It is worth putting on record the names of those participating agencies: the Bat Conservation Trust, the Environmental Investigation Agency, Humane Society International UK, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals and WWF UK. They are all saying exactly what my hon. Friend said: what we do on the world stage must be matched by what we do here. That is important.

All those organisations have been very vocal and robust in their work, and supportive of the UK Government’s leadership bid to tackle the illegal wildlife trade by hosting a high-level meeting on 12 and 13 February 2014. An action plan will be developed, which will work alongside the Duke of Cambridge’s United for Wildlife foundation. There has been a huge amount of action since we produced our report, which leads me to say that our debate today is perfect timing. I hope the new Minister will lead by showing best practice at home, and the best way he can do that is by revisiting each and every recommendation in our report. That way, he will have total integrity, based on a sound track record at home, at the high-level meeting that the Government are organising. He has everything to gain from reviewing the work in detail, because, with the new wave of activity, some of the Government responses in March are out of date. There would be nothing wrong with the Government saying, “We have revisited it and we’re thinking about things differently.” I hope he will be able to do that cross-cutting and revisit our recommendations.

The first recommendation relates to the national wildlife crime unit. All the evidence told us that it is strategic and co-ordinates wildlife crime enforcement. No one had a bad word to say about it; it was universally praised, which is unusual in a Select Committee inquiry. It obviously has good relationships with UK police forces, Interpol and international enforcement agencies. It has a lot of expertise and is doing a good job in respect of the trade in endangered species, illegal taxidermy and auction sales, bat and badger-related offences, marine species, reptile smuggling, wild bird netting and egg collecting. I cannot get my head around the fact that the sums involved in the unit are very small. DEFRA and the Home Office each contributed £144,000 in 2011-12, £136,000 in 2012-13—the amount is going down—and £136,000 in 2013-14. Those are very small amounts of money, which are making a huge difference.

Given the range and effectiveness of the NWCU’s work, the Committee concluded that it is excellent value for money and punches above its weight, but how can such an agency be run on an ad hoc, year-on-year basis? It cannot plan future expansion, it cannot keep good staff, and every year it spends all its time making the case to DEFRA and the Home Office for the funding to be agreed in the comprehensive spending review, because the money is not in the baseline budget. Why not? It should be. The Committee recommended that the Government reinforce success by implementing long-term funding arrangements for the NWCU. The previous Minister did well to get a one-year extension, but we need permanent funding.

Another issue of a little concern relates to the then newly appointed Association of Chief Police Officers lead on wildlife crime, Chief Constable Stuart Hyde. He gave evidence to the Committee, and we were looking forward to seeing how his ideas on wildlife crime enforcement would pan out in practice. He was suspended from duty in September 2012 following allegations of misconduct, unrelated to the wildlife crime brief, I hasten to add. How has the work that he was to do been taken up and carried on in his absence?

Staying with enforcement issues, we identified the need for reviews of Crown Prosecution Service wildlife crime prosecutions and the penalties for wildlife crime, the introduction of sentencing guidelines for the judiciary and training for magistrates. Most of those featured in our 2004 report. Despite the Government saying in their response to the report that they would not follow those recommendations, the time for the Government to give them a fresh look is long overdue. There are also issues with invasive species, which some of my colleagues took a great interest in, which we must return to and keep under the scrutiny of the Committee.

Moving on from enforcement, I want to discuss the hen harrier briefly. It is arguably the species most at risk of extinction in England and Wales. I notice that DEFRA has a target in its business plan of no extinctions in England and Wales. It is important that Departments do what departmental business plans say they are going to do. We are looking at a range of departmental business plans, but DEFRA has the target in its business plan, so what is it doing?

I could talk at length about the different views that witnesses who gave evidence to our inquiry had on the cause of the decline in hen harriers. We felt that persecution is a key factor in the decline of the hen harrier. I draw the Minister’s attention to five academic studies, by Redpath, Natural England, Summers, Etheridge, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The JNCC found that the most common form of persecution is deliberate nest disturbance, which is why, after a lengthy discussion, we felt that the Government should evaluate the effect of an offence of vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of birds of prey, as the Scottish Government did in 2011, and consider introducing such an offence in England and Wales, to make landowners responsible for the activities of their gamekeepers. The Government said that they would review the matter as soon as statistics were available, and I can tell the Minister that when the Select Committee visited the Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh, we had a brief discussion with MSPs and put that on their agenda. Are the statistics on the impact of the offence of vicarious liability in Scotland available? Will the Government look at the Scottish experience and report back?

All international wildlife crime is serious. We heard that the tiger, the elephant and the rhinoceros all face extinction in their natural habitats due to demand for illegal wildlife products derived from their body parts. Most troublingly, we heard that those body parts are not, as some had previously assumed, mostly used in traditional Asian medicine, but being traded as investments for their scarcity value. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has done a great deal to publicise that. As those species draw closer to extinction, the value of their body parts increases. We even heard about a Chinese bank that runs an investment fund based on elephant ivory.

In their response to our report, the Government agreed that “investment and conspicuous consumption” are emerging as significant drivers of demand. We were encouraged to hear how the UK is combating such trends domestically by strictly applying the criteria for the re-export of antique animal products, such as ivory billiard balls of all things, but we could question why those criteria were not applied strictly in the first place.

We can make significant inroads only through international co-operation. We therefore recommended that at the March 2013 CITES—convention on international trade in endangered species—conference of the parties, the Government take the lead in encouraging all CITES member states to enforce wildlife law. In particular, we urged the Government to focus attention on the damaging effect of one-off sales of impounded illegal wildlife products, such as elephant ivory, which serve only to stimulate the market and ultimately drive poaching, and we urged the Government to make the case for an unequivocal ban on all forms of international ivory trade. Will the Minister set out the negotiating position adopted by the Government at the CITES conference earlier this year, and the extent to which it was successful?

Will the Minister comment on decision 16.55, which directs that a decision-making mechanism—sorry to be technical—for a process of trade in ivory be adopted at the next conference of the parties? Why does he not call for an unequivocal international ban on all forms of ivory now? As part of the CITES working group, of which the UK is a member, will he call for the suspension of discussions on the decision-making mechanism? As was suggested in the earlier intervention, the agenda has moved on fast, even since we took evidence. We were heartened by the destruction in the US of stockpiles of ivory, which demonstrates that President Obama and others are taking a serious stance on the matter. We are talking about something that might have been considered impossible last May; the question now is not whether it will happen, but how it will. I do not think there is any harm in reviewing the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the Liaison Committee and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, for securing this debate. It is a shame that it has taken so long to secure it. She explained to me earlier that part of the reason for that was that, with the summer recess coming, it was not easy to get a slot. She also made the point that it took the Government some time to respond to the Committee’s report. I am able to say that that was nothing to do with me, because I was not in the Government at the time. However, what I can say—a number of people have said this already—is that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), was absolutely passionate about these issues, so I do not think anyone should read into that delay that there was any lack of interest in the issue of wildlife crime on his part.

As we have heard, wildlife crime is a matter that we all care deeply about. Hon Members are quite right to seek reassurance about what the Government are doing to tackle the issue. Efforts to tackle wildlife crime have moved forward hugely in the last 10 years, thanks to the commitment and enthusiasm of successive Governments, the enforcement agencies and the many non-governmental organisations that willingly share their expertise and experience. We should take a moment to reflect on what has already been achieved, and to put on record our appreciation of the contribution that has been made by everyone who has been involved. Their work has helped to make the UK the envy of many countries around the world on this issue.

The range and nature of the evidence submitted to the Committee’s inquiry—we heard from the Chair of the Committee that there were 57 submissions—showed how interested people are in this issue, and there was a range of perspectives. As the Chair of the Committee said, the threat from the international wildlife trade has come into sharper focus this year. I welcome hon. Members’ support for the action that the Government are taking to work with the international community to tackle this issue. The increasing levels of elephant and rhino poaching, and of illegal trade globally, are indeed very worrying. They not only threaten individual species but governance, national security and development goals.

The Chair of the Committee said that the illegal wildlife trade is the fifth biggest criminal activity globally. The figures that I have been given suggest that it is now the third biggest, behind only drugs and people trafficking. It has now been categorised by the UN as a serious organised crime. As many hon. Members have already alluded to, as part of our commitment to tackling this trade we will host a conference in London on 13 February 2014 to galvanise international efforts to tackle wildlife crime and to secure top-level global political commitment on this issue. In the run-up to the conference—

[Caroline Lucas]

Perhaps I will pre-empt what the Minister was about to say, but I wanted to pick up on the point that the Chair of the Committee made earlier about the London conference, which we all welcome. Can the Minister assure us that in addition to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers and officials being there and taking a lead as we would expect they would—we know the Minister’s commitment—will he ensure that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice will play an absolutely key role at the conference too, because unless they are also on board I fear that we will not see the positive outcome that we all want?

[George Eustice]

I was about to go on to say that, although I cannot say exactly which Departments will be represented at the conference, in the run-up to it the Government are collaborating closely with other countries, the royal household, multilateral organisations and major NGOs to agree a way forward and to reach a consensus on the required outputs from the conference.

A number of Members have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke passionately about the problems of the ivory trade; it is clear that there is a very strong feeling about this issue. The Chair of the Committee asked specifically what the Government’s negotiating position on this issue was when it was discussed at the convention on international trade in endangered species conference. I must be honest; being so new to the job, I will have to write to her specifically to set out the precise position that we took. However, looking at the Government’s response to the Committee’s report I know that they obviously touched on some of these issues and made it absolutely clear that we want to maintain the existing ban on raw ivory, although they also highlight that there is a slight difference with some of the antique ivories, which tend to predate 1947; indeed, they are required to predate 1947. There is a slight difference there, but I will write to her to clarify precisely the position that was taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. In his county, 234 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered in 2012. Shockingly, in the first six months of this year the number of healthy cattle slaughtered reached 307. I again appeal to those on the Opposition Front Bench to look at the policies pursued in America, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and even by their socialist friends in France, where there are regular culls of diseased animals. We do not have a valid cattle vaccine. We are working closely with the European Commission, but we are at least 10 years away from that, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) cannot hide behind dreams ahead. We have to address the disease now with the tools we have at the moment, as every other sensible country does.

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

It is indeed a tragedy that so many cattle have been slaughtered, but that does not make a badger cull right or effective. The Department is reported to be undertaking new research into the possible gassing of badgers. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what is the scope of the research, and why does he have cause to think that the 2005 DEFRA review, which found that gassing badgers could not be done humanely, is no longer valid?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I have just said, until we can establish vaccines we have to use the tools employed by other sensible countries to remove wildlife. Our TB strategy is clear about looking at other methods of removing wildlife. Yes, gassing is under consideration, but we will not use it unless it is proven to be safe, humane and effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I confirm again my belief that because in parts of the UK, such as upland areas, it is tough to make a living purely from food production, there is a significant role for taxpayers’ money to be spent on environmental schemes supporting the valuable work upland farmers do to protect and improve the environment, upon which sits a tourism industry worth £33 billion.

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

The “State of Nature” report produced by 25 major UK conservation organisations found that 60% of UK species reliant on farmlands are in decline. Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been concern about a shortage of funding for high nature value farming areas? What steps will he take to support farmers so that they can continue to produce high-quality food in those areas and protect threatened species as well?

[Mr Paterson]

I think the hon. Lady knows that we get real value out of our existing higher level stewardship scheme. As I made clear in previous replies, I will endorse the transfer of money from pillar one to pillar two for environmental schemes, which will bring real benefits to our biodiversity and the species about which she is concerned.

Badger Cull

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who made a balanced speech. I will vote for the motion, as I think that the balance of science is clear, but I appreciated the way in which he approached the issue.

As the MP who last year proposed a Back-Bench motion, which won cross-party support, to stop the proposed badger culls and that favoured more sustainable and humane solutions, I am deeply disappointed that the Government remain so intransigent and determined to ignore public opinion, including the almost 250,000 people who have signed an e-petition calling for no badgers to be culled. The Government are essentially cherry-picking the scientific evidence and failing to heed the opinions of many experts.

I do not in any way underestimate the hardship and distress that bovine TB causes farmers. This really is not a debate between those who somehow understand farmers and those who do not. I think that all of us are united in wanting to get rid of this horrible disease. The question is what is the most effective way to do it. Other hon. Members have made a compelling case that the proposed cull is not based on science, and that the proposals—not least the free shooting measures—are hugely flawed. Also, as has come to light more recently, the proposals are likely to be extremely costly.

I want to look at the alternatives because, again, this is not a debate between those who want a cull and those who want to do nothing. There are plenty of things that those of us who do not want a cull would like done instead, and we would like them done much more quickly and with much greater political will. First, I shall deal with cattle control measures, which the Independent Scientific Group recommended:

“In contrast with the situation regarding badger culling, our data and modelling suggest that substantial reductions in cattle TB incidence could be achieved by improving cattle-based control measures.”

It makes specific reference to zoning or herd attestation, shorter testing intervals and whole-herd slaughter for chronically affected herds. Although the Government have introduced some new restrictions, the evidence suggests that much more priority should be given to restricting the movement of cattle.

It is highly likely that a significant proportion of cattle-to-cattle transmission of bovine TB may be going undetected, and that the role of badgers in the spread of the disease may have been overestimated. A recent scientific paper suggested that as many as two in 10 infected cattle might be missed by the test used to check whether cattle are infected with TB. Other research suggests that up to 21% of herds may still be harbouring infection after being cleared from movement restrictions, and that larger herds suffer not just a high incidence of the disease but a faster rate of spread between cattle. In EU evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, reduced cattle movement was flagged as the single biggest difference between the UK and the rest of Europe.

Improving biosecurity must also take priority, and it would cost farmers an average of £4,000, compared with £27,000 to deal with a TB herd breakdown. When applied correctly, barriers, gates, fencing and so forth can be 100% efficient, so perhaps some of the money being thrown at culling should instead be directed towards helping farmers to keep badgers out of their farm buildings. Steve Jones, a farmer deeply concerned about biosecurity, urges that something be done about water troughs, which act as a reservoir for TB, because they are rarely cleaned out. As he says:

“Making troughs badger-proof is not rocket science”,

and that needs to be part of a concerted effort to adopt better hygiene standards across the agricultural industry. Of course farmers already know the importance of immediately quarantining cows infected with TB, of isolation areas to separate those animals and prevent cross-infection, and of limiting contact between cattle and local wildlife. In all those respects, we need to help farmers to be proactive and follow the advice of, say, Natural England about on-farm biosecurity and badger exclusion zones. I fear that farmers are being given the impression that culling is the answer to all these problems, when that simply is not the case. The Government’s strategy has been reactive to the spread of bovine TB; it needs to be proactive, with increased biosecurity and rigorous cattle movement controls.

A former Government adviser, Lord Robert May, points to cattle vaccination as an important tool. He says:

“What is particularly irritating is that we have the vaccines in the pipeline, but the commitment to really go in and test them is really not there”.

DEFRA’s website acknowledges that experimental studies show that BCG vaccination reduces the progression, severity and excretion of TB in cattle, and field trials show that it can reduce the transmission of disease between animals. We need to press ahead with the DIVA test, which confirms whether a positive skin test result is caused by vaccination or TB infection. There is no evidence that DEFRA is doing nearly enough on the test, or on discussions with the European Commission. Commissioner Tonio Borg has set out a plan for a usable cattle vaccine in a letter to the Secretary of State, suggesting, for example, that substantial experimental research and large-scale, long-lasting—perhaps two to five years—field trials should begin this year. He also makes it clear that cattle vaccination need not be a barrier to EU trade in the longer term.

The report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was published this morning, makes it clear that the Government have misinterpreted EU rules. The Committee recommends that details of field trials are published as soon as possible, and I could not agree more. I also agree that vaccination alone is not the solution but can play a part in an effective strategy, alongside other evidence-based measures. We should not go down the line of a cull, which is a costly distraction from a wide range of other measures, including cattle controls, biosecurity, and promoting vaccination of both badgers and cattle. That package is most likely to be effective from a scientific point of view and to secure public acceptance, and it is certainly a far more cost-effective way forward. I very much hope that the Government will step back from the position that they have taken, as they will face massive protests in all the proposed cull areas. People will not simply sit back and watch this happen. There is massive public concern, so I hope that the Government are listening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The Forestry Commission’s strategy stated clearly that recent outbreaks of tree health problems, such as oak processionary moth, underline the need to maintain an experienced team of pathologists and entomologists capable of carrying out both strategic research and “fire brigade” investigations of new problems. Will the Minister therefore rule out any new cuts to DEFRA and its agencies in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, particularly as that would endanger the future survival of our country’s trees and forests?

[Mr Heath]

It is desperately important that we not only keep together the cadre of experts we have, but expand it. There is a need to recruit new expert entomologists, for instance. The hon. Lady mentions oak processionary moth, which is a significant problem, but there are many other potential diseases and pests that we need to be aware of. I am absolutely clear that we need to retain that centre of expertise in the Department. That is exactly what the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce is looking at. It is not for me to pre-empt what the spending review might say, but it is certainly our intent to ensure that we protect essential services to protect tree health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I certainly will. All the key information was announced yesterday; the hon. Gentleman may be aware of that. The National Fallen Stock Company will administer the scheme both for farmers who are members of the company and those who are not. Farmers should visit the National Fallen Stock Company website or call its telephone helpline to get the details and check whether they are eligible. Applications must be received by 30 June and payments are expected to be made by the end of July.

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

The Government said that the pilot badger culls are being carried out to test whether badgers can be killed humanely. They still have not released the criteria by which the cull will be assessed to ascertain whether it is humane. When will those criteria be published—or is the Minister holding them back because he knows perfectly well that they will demonstrate that it is not possible to kill them in a humane way?

[Mr Heath]

It is always interesting when people know the results of a trial before it is carried out. These trials will indicate whether it is possible to effect this cull in a humane, a safe and an effective way. That will be reviewed by an independent panel, quite independent of the Department and those taking part in the cull, and we will then assess that and report to the House in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and share his intense frustration. I am glad to say that we are moving forward with one church in Yorkshire, where we think we may have found a resolution, and some churches in Norfolk. It cannot have ever been the intention of those who imposed this directive on us to limit the ability of people to worship in a church that has been there for centuries.

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

T5. Last week the Secretary of State said that he was keen to delay European Union proposals to protect essential pollinators from neonicotinoids until new British field data were available. At the very same time, his own chief scientist was telling members of the Environmental Audit Committee that those same trials had been deeply compromised. When will the Secretary of State stop prevaricating and implement a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids without further delay?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the position clear. There have been a number of reports based on laboratory data. I have raised the issue with Minister Coveney, who has the presidency of the European Union, and had a meeting with Commissioner Borg about it only last week. We have asked them to wait until the data from our field trials have been analysed. We are fully aware of the strength of feeling that the hon. Lady represents, but there are also people who believe that these materials are not damaging. What is absolutely critical is that we do the right thing for bees, because they play such a fundamental role. There is no point in removing one product if it does not actually hurt bees. What we really need to do is look at how we can promote bee health, because it is so important to all plant life.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye. It has been an excellent consensual debate so far. I have the privilege of serving on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also serve on the Defence Committee and I hope that the Backbench Business Committee will in future consider the timings of some of these debates. I suspect that this debate may not go the whole five hours. There might have been an opportunity for a second debate later, although I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is still to share his huge wisdom with us, which may take some time.

As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I am cognisant of the issues facing the farming industry. It has been a measured debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing it and on being present to open it and then to hear the very good exchanges that have taken place. I received a number of e-mails from constituents asking me to attend and I was happy to do so. I shall tackle a couple of issues that particularly affect Scotland. Also, I am conscious of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for a Select Committee inquiry. I shall return to that.

On the subject of transportation, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned the importance of the export of live animals to British farmers, particularly those in the sheep industry. I understand that around 400,000 live animals a year are exported, more than 90% of which are sheep.

We all recognise the challenges facing the sheep industry across the United Kingdom, particularly in upland areas. Were we to ban live exports, not only would we fall foul of European law—article 34, I think, but I might be wrong—but there would be serious consequences for our farmers. However, that is not to say that we should not require the highest standards of animal welfare in the process, and I welcome the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse on the way forward.

It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s thoughts on some things. For example, does he agree that using regular services on large, cross-channel freight ferries from Dover might be more advantageous than the less than ideal conditions in which they are sailing from Ramsgate, as the hon. Lady said? Not only are journey times significantly shorter, but there are more frequent sailing opportunities for ferries. Also, there are probably—I hope she takes no offence—better and more appropriate port facilities for live animals at Dover than there are at Ramsgate.

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

Opting for an all-out ban right now would be against EU law, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister did everything he could to advocate such a ban at European level, because we are often told that things are against EU law, but when member states really start to push they can get breakthroughs?

[Thomas Docherty]

No, I do not agree that we should have an outright ban. If the hon. Lady had been here since the start of the debate, she would have heard the reasons why. We have a fragile farming industry and banning the trade would be ludicrous. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is sitting beside her, will probably wish to point out to her that banning the use of ferries would effectively end sheep farming on the Western Isles, the Isle of Arran and other islands around the United Kingdom. I am sorry that she has not had the opportunity to go across the country and listen to farmers, because otherwise she would understand the fragile state of their industry and the damage an outright ban would do. If she had been here for the whole debate, rather than coming in at the last minute, she would have had an opportunity to hear the eloquent speeches made by Members on both sides of the House.

Another consideration is that there are larger, faster and more stable boats sailing each day from Dover. As the hon. Member for South Thanet set out clearly, we are dealing with a very dubious character when it comes to the gentleman running the trade out of Ramsgate. It is obvious that animal welfare is not his priority and that he is not interested in local public opinion or in what DEFRA has to say. For him, it is all about the bottom buck. It would help if the Minister set out what powers DEFRA has to ensure that a fast buck is not the most important consideration for exporters and that animal welfare is crucial.

Over the past few years we have seen that having an export market for livestock helps even those farmers who sell within the UK because it takes some of the surplus supply overseas. About six weeks ago the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and I had a very good debate in Westminster Hall on the dairy industry. We pointed out, along with another Select Committee colleague, that what farmers need is a fair price for their produce, whether it is milk, mutton, lamb or beef. Doing all we can to encourage exports will not only bring additional revenue into the UK and help the balance of payments—I do not intend to give the House a lecture on economics—but help to secure a fairer price for farmers and a vibrant farming industry. Perhaps the Minister will also set out what DEFRA intends to do to encourage exports to other parts of the European Union, because Labour Members, with perhaps one exception, recognise that a vibrant farming industry is a good thing for the British economy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry, but the condescension coming from the hon. Gentleman is hard to bear. He is implying that the UK farming industry is all of one view on this, but I know UK farmers who are absolutely against the export of live animals precisely because of the cruelty involved. To suppose that those of us who are, for strong ethical reasons, against the trade are somehow also against UK farming is a gross simplification of the issue.

[Thomas Docherty]

Obviously I speak regularly with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I know that colleagues speak regularly with the National Farmers Union in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. If she can point to which of those four organisations, which are the voice of farmers, shares her rather extreme views, I would be delighted to meet it.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on every issue, so the fact that we are on the same side of the argument today, as are Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues and, indeed, Members on my own Front Bench—always a pleasant treat—shows clearly that the House supports a vibrant but, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, ethical and humane export policy. That is the nub of the debate. It is not about the principle of exports; it is about how we treat the animals. That is why we need more rigorous enforcement. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he thinks DEFRA, with its existing powers, could better ensure that that happens.

The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament debated a motion, similar to those we often have in this place, to approve a report by its agriculture committee. It contained much to be welcomed on the issue of animal transportation. It recognised, as we have done today—those of us who have been here throughout the debate—that we should seek to have higher standards and that it is a question of how we ensure compliance across all member states.

However, there is one issue that I and the National Farmers Union of Scotland disagree with, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: an obsession with the eight-hour rule. There is no credible scientific advice demonstrating that exceeding the arbitrary limit of eight hours leads to a drop in animal welfare. As the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Brecon and Radnorshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and other Members from elsewhere in the great parts of the Celtic kingdoms would point out, getting to abattoirs even within the United Kingdom can take more than eight hours. I am thinking, in particular, of the pig industry and the difficult circumstances Vion is currently going through. For example, if Vion is sold and its Scottish abattoir is closed, the nearest abattoir for pig farmers from north-east Scotland will probably be in Yorkshire. If we were allowed to head down the path of the eight-hour rule, it is difficult to see how farmers in Morayshire and across north-east Scotland, never mind those in the highlands, could survive. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce, and do not support, an eight-hour rule.

I hope that the Minister, who is no doubt busy taking notes in his head, will also tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations. It is vital that DEFRA work with Mr Lochhead in the Scottish Parliament, our Labour colleague in Wales and our Democratic Unionist party colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that we are all working together on this issue, on which, overwhelmingly, all the grown-up, sensible parties are united in wanting a vibrant farming industry.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the entire membership of the RSPCA are not sensible people? I find his—what is the word?—patronage towards people who do not agree with him to be absolutely unacceptable.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that the word the hon. Lady wants is “patronising” rather than “patronage”, but I accept that she was grasping for it and missed. Obviously, the RSPCA is entitled to its view, but it has not—dare I say it?—looked at the bigger picture. It is surely the job of parliamentarians to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to follow the evidence, and the reality is that there is no evidence to say that an eight-hour rule would lead to a rise in animal welfare standards. In fact, it would only damage the farming industries in Scotland, parts of Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Let me move on to what more we could do. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has written to the Select Committee about this. One issue that we have not talked about is what more supermarkets can do. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether we could encourage them to introduce labelling that says that they have introduced their own voluntary codes about humane standards and clearly states what they are. We all know of the great success that the British egg industry has had with the introduction of the red lion symbol on packets of eggs. There are also fair trade labels for overseas goods. In the debate on the dairy industry a few weeks ago, an eloquent point was made by an hon. Member who said that we rightly talk about fair trade for overseas farmers but do not talk enough about fair trade for British farmers. I want to extend that principle. We should have clearer labelling from the supermarkets and the food producers that says that all their products have been produced in a humane way that complies with the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

On the request for a Select Committee inquiry, I am not in a position to divulge the thinking of colleagues, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have listened sympathetically to the arguments made today. We have been talking about the need for an inquiry into how EU regulations as a whole are implemented. I hope that we will have an opportunity in the near future to carry out such an inquiry, which might be a useful tool. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore responds to the debate he could set out in a little more detail what he thinks the terms of reference might be.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as the sole representative of my political party, it is difficult to be in more than one place at once, but I am working on it.

I am genuinely glad to take part in this debate, because the issue is close to my heart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for all her work on the issue. She has put it high up on the political agenda again, and I thank her for that.

I do not think it is useful to characterise this debate as being one between those who are grown up and those who are somehow not grown up. I seriously regret the tone of some of the debate over the past half an hour. We are all trying to work out how to reduce the harm that can be done to animals in the live animal trade, and there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether it is ever possible to put in place sufficient safeguards for live animal exports in order to ensure the welfare of the animals. Some people—including some of the hon. Members present—believe that it is possible to do that, but there is a group of people who are not un-grown up, who are not unscientific and who are not in some way defective who have genuine concerns about whether or not, even if we had an eight-hour journey limit, we can look after animals sufficiently.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Several of us who spoke earlier—I accept that the hon. Lady has greater difficulties than others in attending debates—put on record the fact that we choose not to eat meat and poultry and that we would prefer it if other people did not, either. We have been debating two distinct issues: one is the principle of live animal exports, and the other is what happened at Ramsgate. For many people, they are the same issue, but for others they are two distinct issues that need to be addressed in different ways.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I genuinely think is extremely helpful and very much welcome.

I come to the issue from the perspective of having spent 10 years in the European Parliament. I was vice-president of the animal welfare intergroup. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was its president and he did a great job.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady has mentioned guarantees in live export. As a crofter, I cannot give guarantees on live beasts on the croft. Something could happen to them—they could fall into a ditch or they could get snared in a fence. There are hazards all the time and there is no absolute guarantee I can give. All I can do is minimise the hazards to the best of my ability and with the knowledge built up over a number of years.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that he makes my point. There is a parallel between this debate and some of our debates on the use of wild animals in circuses. On the one hand, we can try to reduce the harm done to those animals; on the other hand, we can say that, no matter how hard we try, ultimately it is not a good place for animals to be. I would argue that being on long-distance transportation is not a good place for animals to be, either, and others may come to a similar conclusion.

I believe that long journeys can be stressful for sheep and calves. The stress factors include deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom, noise and vibration. Animal welfare is not served by long journeys or by the poor treatment that is often experienced by animals at the journey’s end.

Yesterday’s announcement by DEFRA that it is strengthening the controls that apply to live exports is a step in the right direction, but there is no guarantee that British animals will be protected from the suffering that they currently endure when being transported abroad.

[Roger Williams]

Some of us are concerned that people do not draw a distinction between export and the movement of animals. The suspicion is that there will be a move to stop all movement of animals, because people cannot see the difference between exporting an animal and just moving an animal.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is a helpful intervention. I would much prefer to see many more small, local abattoirs around the country so that even within this country we do not have long journey times. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although one can argue that more stress factors are involved in transporting animals overseas, such as animals being decanted into different vehicles, even if animals are transported within the UK for eight hours or more, it is not necessarily in their best interests.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Lady seems to be missing the point that was made earlier about some of our smaller communities, such as Arran, the Western Isles and some parts of Wales and the highlands of Scotland, which simply could not have a local abattoir. Is she saying that she opposes the movement of sheep, cattle and pigs from the Western Isles or Arran by boat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

What I am saying is that we could be more creative in looking for solutions. In other countries where big distances are involved, one economic response has been to have mobile abattoirs. In remote areas where it is uneconomic to have an abattoir because it would not be served by many animals, a mobile abattoir might be more practical. I would like to make some progress, if I may.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, because I want to make some progress, if I may.

Calf exports have been declining amid concerns in some important countries about bovine tuberculosis. However, as Members know, countries such as Spain are still major destinations for British calves. Journeys to Spain can take more than 90 hours and young calves are poorly equipped to withstand the rigours of such a journey. Dr Claire Weeks, the senior research fellow in animal welfare at Bristol university has concluded:

“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport… Therefore transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”

On arrival in Europe, calves are typically kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems have been outlawed in the UK. There is a real question about the ethical acceptability of calves being sent for rearing abroad in conditions that have been prohibited on welfare grounds here at home.

With calf exports declining, the industry has been considering alternatives, for example through the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum. That initiative involves beef and dairy industry bodies, Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, Government, retailers and academics. The forum is starting to overturn the assumption that male dairy calves produce low-quality beef and hence should be exported for veal production or shot in the head soon after birth. As a result of its work, male dairy calves are increasingly being reared in Britain to high welfare standards, with a resultant fall in the number of calves shot at birth or exported for veal production. I am confident that more dairy farmers would abandon the trade if the Government engaged with the industry more proactively and gave them more help to do so. The carcass-only trade is already widespread and I want to see an end to the remaining exports of live calves.

The export of sheep is in many ways no better. It, too, entails significant suffering and long, stressful journeys. In addition, British animals may experience poor welfare in European abattoirs. In 2007-08, a French animal welfare organisation carried out an investigation into 25 French slaughterhouses and found many breaches of EU legislation that is meant to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. Earlier this year, a report by the EU’s food and veterinary office identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. The Netherlands is the destination for many sheep that are exported from Britain. Once animals leave our shores, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. All the evidence suggests that they are not necessarily being treated with standards comparable to our own welfare expectations.

For sheep, as for calves, I believe that the trade should be meat and carcass only. Slaughtering a higher proportion of animals in the UK for domestic consumption or meat exports could create jobs and increase profits here. Indeed, the economic case for the live export of sheep seems negligible. In 2011, just 0.5% of the sheep reared in the UK were slaughtered abroad. That is 72,458 sheep, compared with the 14.5 million that were slaughtered in the UK. It is difficult to believe that transporting such a relatively small number of animals abroad for slaughter makes a significant contribution to the sheep sector’s earnings, or that that contribution justifies the suffering that the sheep undergo during the long journey from the UK. The UK economy would probably benefit much more from the added value derived from processing animals at home, rather than exporting the raw material for the benefit of processors abroad.

Much of this debate has focused on the disaster at the port of Ramsgate. Animal welfare conditions are questionable during the process of live transport, as well as on arrival. Other Members have spoken strongly about the Russian tanker, the Joline, which had to turn back en route to Calais because of adverse weather conditions. The ship’s design means that it is particularly sensitive to poor conditions. On this occasion, the sea was breaking over the vessel. Its design also means that there is little leeway between the time that it takes to cross the channel and the maximum journey time for calves of nine hours after a one hour rest at port. On another occasion, the vessel was held at Ramsgate for two hours because of adverse weather warnings and the lorries on board were in danger of exceeding the journey limit.

In a six-month period when the RSPCA was inspecting every vehicle involved in the trade through Ramsgate for infractions, it issued six warning notices. In September 2012, one lorry was stopped because of faults with the vehicle. The animals were unloaded and two sheep, one with a broken leg, were put down. Another 41 lame sheep were euthanised. Six sheep fell into the water after they were loaded into an area where a drain became exposed. Four of them were rescued by RSPCA officers, but two drowned. It appears that a proportion of the lame sheep were injured during the journey owing to a defect in the vehicle, but others were apparently lame before the start of the journey. By law, an official veterinarian must, before an export journey begins, certify that the animals are fit to travel.

That case raises serious questions. If some sheep were lame before the journey, why did the vet who inspected them certify them as being fit to travel? Are the checks and balances that are meant to be in place fit for purpose? Given those failures, can DEFRA’s ordering more inspections give us confidence? It is not even clear whether it intends to increase the number of inspections that are taking place or simply to meet its current legal obligations.

I agree with those who have said that the facilities are Ramsgate are not suitable for ensuring the welfare of animals if they need to be offloaded in an emergency. Despite the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that he intends to pursue a zero-tolerance approach to animal welfare and live exports, I think that the contingency plans that DEFRA has announced are inadequate. A temporary ban on live animal exports out of Ramsgate was lifted last month, but legal action is still under way. It is vital that far more is done to safeguard the welfare of animals that are shipped through the port, especially as access for the RSPCA to inspect conditions has been denied.

In the 1990s, the European Court of Justice twice ruled that the UK cannot ban live exports. Such action has to be taken at EU level. That does not let the Government off the hook. There is much more that they could be doing to bring this trade to an end. They could go to Brussels and press for a change in EU law to allow individual member states to ban live exports.

Since the two European Court cases, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has recognised animals as “sentient beings”. It requires the EU and member states, in formulating and implementing EU policies on agriculture, transport and the single market, to

“pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.

That article creates a new legislative landscape in which, with the right political will, the UK would be justified in pressing for the right to lawfully end this trade.

Earlier this week, MEPs voted for improvements to the conditions in which live animals are exported, but they failed to reduce the maximum journey time. How different might the result of that vote have been if the UK had actively lobbied for an eight-hour limit? The Government must take the lead in pressing the EU to place a maximum limit of eight hours on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am puzzled. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that, given the current location of abattoirs, an eight-hour limit would have serious repercussions for the Scottish agriculture industry?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need to look for solutions to that problem. The suggestion is that a trade can carry on despite a wealth of evidence. He asked earlier about my evidence for the cruelty of the trade and I could read out a whole set of scientific studies. I appreciate that difficult discussions and debates must be had about how to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers, about which I care deeply, but to say simply that we should carry on with business as usual is not an adequate response.

As colleagues will know, I am a former MEP and I have worked extensively on this issue. As I have said, ideally I want a complete ban on the trade of live exports, but imposing a maximum journey time of eight hours would at least help reduce the current suffering. That should also be backed up with sufficient resources to ensure that minimum welfare standards are met.

For example, DEFRA could carry out more rigorous checks to ensure that the mandatory rest breaks required by EU Council regulation 1/2005 are provided. At present, that seems to be verified primarily via returned journey logs, which are often open to abuse and inaccuracy. Instead, DEFRA should ask the appropriate authority of the member state in which the rest break was due to confirm that it was provided, or check the data on which the vehicle’s tachograph or satellite navigation scheme depends. That would show when animals were rested, and for how long.

The sheep and dairy sectors receive generous subsidies from the taxpayer and we should consider whether they should carry the costs of regulating the trade, particularly the cost of pre-export inspections at the place of departure and the port. The Government could also amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to enable ports to refuse to allow live export consignments to use their harbours. I understand that Ramsgate would welcome such a move, as would other UK ports.

As I said, my constituents have been lobbying me in support of a ban on live exports, and the issue has growing public support. A petition on the No. 10 website has more than 31,000 signatures. That number is growing rapidly every day and I hope that when it reaches 100,000, we can have a further debate and—crucially—MPs can vote on whether to take a stand against the trade. I regret that so few Members are in the Chamber this afternoon but I do not think that that reflects the strength of feeling on the issue. If we had a votable motion, far more colleagues would have attended and contributed strongly to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I conclude with one simple request for the Government to make every effort to end what is a cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade in live animals.

Ash Dieback Disease

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I will leave the public to decide whether flogging fromage to the Chinese is more important than explaining to the British people what action the Secretary of State is taking on a major environmental and ecological disaster that is unfolding on his watch. [Interruption.] I believe that “flogging fromage and fizz” are the words he used the last time he went off to France, so I am using his own words back at him. Clearly, it would be much more comfortable to be going off to China than to be in the hot seat, where the Minister of State finds himself.

The scale of the ash dieback emergency is now clear. It has been found in 129 sites in England and Scotland, including 15 nurseries and 50 recently planted sites. The most worrying discovery is that the disease is present in 64 woodland sites. That number will rise sharply as more trees are surveyed. Professor Michael Shaw from Reading university has described it as “catastrophic”.

Scientists believe that most of our 80 million ash trees will face a long, slow decline over the next 10 years. The tree that accounts for one third of our native broad-leaved woodland will all but disappear. A few resistant trees will survive and their seeds will be carefully stored to restock the forests when our children are already grown. Lichens, moths, beetles and bugs that rely on the ash’s alkaline bark will suffer. The 27 species of insects that depend on the ash as their sole food plant might become extinct. Plant nurseries and woodland owners will lose thousands of pounds as they destroy ash saplings, and the wood industry will suffer as wood prices rise. Timber that was planned for will not reach maturity. Chalara fraxinea, or ash dieback, will change our landscape for ever. It is an environmental, ecological and economic disaster.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that this Government’s preference for arguing that the primary reason for the spread of the disease is the wind rather than imports is politically convenient but not very accurate?

[Mary Creagh]

I do, and I shall expand a lot more on that later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman’s theory—it is also the theory of the hon. Member for Wakefield—does not accord with the advice of the leading experts—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady talks about “scientific facts”. I think that displays her underlying problem with understanding how science is developed. We can deal only with the most probable reason for the evidence that is put before us. The leading experts from the United Kingdom and Europe—whom we brought together over the last two weeks under the leadership of DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd—have reviewed the evidence and said that what they see is consistent with a view that the disease is brought in by wind-blown spores.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

In a moment, because I want to correct the nonsense that the hon. Member for Wakefield is promoting.

When the hon. Lady talks about the disease’s speed of progress being 20 to 30 km, we are talking about the front of an epidemic; therefore, it is the speed at which a front in a forest develops over mainland Europe. That does not mean that a spore cannot be carried on the wind for further than 20 or 30 km—that it somehow drops out of the sky when it reaches the 30 km mark and feels it cannot go any further. That is not what the science is saying; what the science is saying is that this is the most likely outcome. Anyone who looks at the distribution will see that it is entirely consistent with wind-blown spread. In fact, many people have said to me that it looks very similar indeed to the distribution of blood tongue, when that hit these shores. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for Leeds Central is nodding, because he knows that that is the case, and that—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) knows better than the scientific experts and a former Secretary of State; he knows that none of this can happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Yes, I am sure the hon. Lady is right: we have an international conspiracy of all the leading forestry scientists in the world, who have decided they want to manufacture evidence to fit some theory concocted in the bowels of my Department. I mean, really, grow up! Look at the map, look at the facts, look at the evidence.

[Caroline Lucas]

Clearly wind has a role to play locally. No one is denying that. The issue is whether the wind is one of the primary vectors. Let us consider tree diseases more broadly. Does the Minister accept that since 2000, more than twice as many tree diseases have entered the UK as entered it in the whole of the last century? Does he want us to believe that it has been incredibly windy since 2000, or is it the case that the number of imports has increased vastly in that time?

[Mr Heath]

No, I do not want the hon. Lady to believe that. Actually, I believe that there has been hugely greater mobility of goods and people in recent years, which has spread disease. That is of real concern to all of us, and we need to deal with it. All I am saying is that, according to a detailed analysis, the incidence of ash dieback disease in this country is consistent with its having been brought in by wind-blown spores. That is what all the leading scientists are telling us, and I see no reason to disbelieve them or to involve some conspiracy theory.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was glad to hear the Minister say that he was determined to learn the lessons of this outbreak, because inadequate biosecurity has been a problem under successive Governments. Instead of arguing about wind direction, we need to ask more fundamental questions about the role of trade and imports. The present situation reminds me of the stories that were put about on bird flu when we were first invited to believe that it was spread purely by wild birds, rather than, as it turned out, as a result of the increasing international trade in poultry and eggs.

In April 2012, in a paper in the scientific journal Nature, scientists warned of wider threats, pointing out that the past two decades have seen an increasing number of virulent infectious diseases in natural populations and managed landscapes. The authors warn that in both animals and plants an unprecedented number of fungal and fungal-like diseases have recently caused some of the most severe die-offs and extinctions ever witnessed in wild species. That has serious implications for wildlife and food security.

On the import of trees, a strong scientific case is being built for more radical controls to tighten biosecurity. Hon. Members may have read in the press the views of senior scientist Dr Stephen Woodward, a specialist in tree disease research at the university of Aberdeen. He advises that the Government must now ban imports or use quarantine for other iconic trees such as oak, pine and plane if they are to be saved from disease. I believe that we have to take that call seriously. Dr Martin Ward, DEFRA’s chief plant officer is also warning that ash dieback is just one of what he calls a “tidal wave of pathogens” that are arriving in Europe. He rightly describes the situation as terrifying, and he warns:

“Unless we have better bio security in the EU it will be very difficult to stop them coming in.”

The scale of the trade in plants for forestry planting is absolutely vast. Approximately 10 million plants are imported for forestry planting every year. That means we need to take much more account than we have done until now of the potential for environmental damage from such trade. For example, in Australia, there are much stricter rules around quarantine, and my understanding is that what happens there is much more effective than anything we have in place in Europe. If plants that could be known to be carrying pathogens were quarantined, we might be able stop at least some of these diseases spreading and slow down others. The case for an import ban, if quarantine conditions are not met, must also be thoroughly and urgently considered.

We also need to look at why we have exposed ourselves to the risks that imports bring. Hon. Members may have read reports of the comments by Dr Jon Heuch, a member of the Forestry Commission’s biosecurity programme. He reports that the seed of the ash is frequently sent abroad from the UK and the trees grown from these seeds are then imported back and sold as having UK provenance. Indeed, there seems to be an extraordinary trade in plants and saplings that are grown in other parts of Europe simply because mass production there means that it is cheaper. Half a million ash trees are imported in the UK every year for use in woodland and gardens. The Horticultural Trades Association admits that many saplings are labelled as British because customers like “local provenance”.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Considering the importance of forestry and woodland as a tourist resource, does the hon. Lady agree with me that it was rather odd that it took nine months from the onset of the disease here for DEFRA to effect a ban? Would she like to shed some light on that in the context of plant biosecurity?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I hope she will forgive me if I agree with her point, but stress that what I want to underline right now—we have already had quite a lot of focus on the timetable and how long it took DEFRA and the Government to declare an emergency—is the central issue of the imports. I am really concerned that we are going to overlook the role of trade and imports when it comes to the vulnerability of the UK in particular and Europe in general to more and more of these diseases that are coming towards us.

Let me say a few words about the forestry grants system. In a sense, it also seems perversely to encourage greater imports. As I understand it, grant agreements specify the type of trees and how much will be spent, including the conditions for the money and specific type of tree, but this could be agreed much more quickly so that UK growers have time to be able to grow them here in the UK rather than feeling forced to source them from abroad. Because the Government tend to agree to these grant schemes very late, it does not give enough time for confidence to grow in the UK market. When they are eventually agreed, we do not have time to grow the saplings, so the foresters go abroad. The Government could usefully look at the whole issue of the forestry grants, and some of their perverse implications when it comes to promoting more and more of this sourcing of our saplings from overseas. Once the seed is grown in the UK, it then goes overseas and then we bring it back again. It seems a crazy system, and it is also very costly when we understand what it is doing to our vulnerability.

I want the Minister to look at two other pieces of legislation, which, although they deal with non-native species, could have some useful read-across for us. A forthcoming EU legal instrument, due in draft imminently, will look at forestry in particular. Scotland has new INNS—invasive, non-native species—legislation, which is far ahead of what we have here in the UK when it comes to biosecurity.

I hope that the Secretary of State will respond positively to early-day motion 663, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Since he did not mention it, I will underline it for him now, because it calls precisely for increased resources to ensure both a rapid response to other disease outbreaks and greater screening and control of imports to minimise the spectre of disease.

Finally, let me underline what other Members have said, which is that it is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that he will move resources from elsewhere in DEFRA to deal with this problem. If he does that, we will not know what robbing Peter to pay Paul will actually mean in practice. We need to find new resources to tackle this issue; we need to look again at the resources for the Forestry Commission; and we need to learn the lessons so that we have much stronger biosecurity in the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that clarity is helpful. I had not seen it either.

The crux of the problem is misdiagnosis. Ministers do not have microscopes on their desks, so before we single out some hapless scientist in forestry research for blame, we should consider carefully how many other people failed to spot the problem as well. When the first case of the new ash fungus was confirmed, trees were felled as a precautionary measure, and a voluntary ban was put in place straight away, so there was no delay. The key to tackling this disease, as was argued earlier, is to find the resistant varieties.

Going forward, the EU plant health regime needs reform. Former and present Members of the European Parliament can perhaps help us with that. We stand some chance, as islands, of being able to have better biosecurity, and we need to fight for that now. In parallel with the EU review, the Government updated their own plant health strategy, deploying more inspectors at points of entry to our country to control imports and piloting new tools of detection. Passenger baggage conditions were reviewed; more funding was released for inspection at growing sites; and better co-ordination of research between the Food and Environment Research Association and the Forestry Commission was achieved. Common sense should tell us that, if tree experts, dedicated woodmen and woodland charities all failed to spot its presence earlier, this disease must be hard to diagnose. It is not helped by the fact that there are other forms of ash dieback, and that other tree diseases were listed ahead of ash dieback as priorities.

If ash dieback had been seen as the big threat we now believe it to be, all relevant stakeholders would have signalled that to me in the numerous face-to-face meetings I had with them during consultations on the public forest estate, or on the extreme weather conditions we experienced in 2011 and 2012. Meetings with the chairman of the Forestry Commission did not have this item on the agenda.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am not going to give way again. Moreover, one might have expected the trade press to have expressed its concern on the front pages of its publications.

We all need to share some responsibility and to redouble our efforts to spot the disease. I applaud the volunteers who have helped with the unprecedented survey of our woods and trees. As my action plan stated, collaborative working—of landowners, industry, academia, civil society and Government—is required better to protect the health of our nation’s trees. We need to pull together, not against each other, in the fight for tree health.

Ash Dieback Disease

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We are keen to bring together experts in plant disease, industry experts and wider forest interests so that we can see what more, if anything, can be done to deal with what could be a disastrous outbreak of the disease. We also need to look at how we will deal most effectively with plant and tree health in future. The Secretary of State and I have discussed that, because we feel that for many years this country has not been as well equipped to deal with plant health as it has with animal health. I would like us to be prepared for all eventualities at all times.

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

This episode is a terrible indictment of the Government, and also the Opposition, because the Horticultural Trades Association first warned about the disease back in 2009—[Interruption.] Neither of your houses has worked hard or fast enough on this. Will the Minister reverse the 25% cuts that he is making to the Forestry Commission so that it has the resources to tackle this episode urgently and properly?

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady simply is not correct. I have explained the sequence of events and the fact that we have in no way reduced the resources available for plant and tree health.

Badger Cull

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes the e-petition on the planned badger cull, which has gathered more than 150,000 signatures; and calls on the Government to stop the cull and implement the more sustainable and humane solution of both a vaccination programme for badgers and cattle, along with improved testing and biosecurity.

The motion is supported by a wide-ranging cross-party group of MPs and let me make it clear that I and, I am sure, all those who support the motion do not in any way underestimate the hardship and distress that bovine TB causes to farmers. Indeed, it is because we recognise the urgent need to address the problem that we are anxious to ensure that we have a scientifically robust and cost-effective strategy that actually works.

Although Tuesday’s announcement that the pilot cull will be postponed until next summer was very welcome, it does not amount to a change of policy. Today’s motion calls on the Government to stop their ill-judged, unscientific and deeply unpopular culling policy for good, not just for a few months. The motion is about an abandonment of the cull, not just a postponement, and that is why it is so important that today’s debate goes ahead. That is what the majority of the public want and it is what the science demands. Public opinion overwhelmingly opposes a badger cull, including in those regions where the pilots were to take place. More than 163,000 members of the public have signed the e-petition launched by animal campaigner and Queen guitarist Brian May. I pay tribute to all of them, to Brian himself, to Team Badger and to all those individuals who played a role in mobilising public opposition to the cull.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Might the hon. Lady accept my paying tribute to the late Peter Hardy, a great Rotherham MP, who introduced the first Badgers Act in 1973, which is why I am proud to stand here in his memory, and honour his dedication to the cause, by voting with her and other hon. Members on this important issue, so that we say no to badgercide?

[Caroline Lucas]

I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He rightly reminds me of the precedence in this House of previous battles that have tried to ensure that we do not have a misguided badger cull as a response to the serious problem of bovine TB.

The Government say that they support an evidence-based approach, so let us look at the evidence. Bovine TB cost the taxpayer £91 million in 2010-11 in testing, in the slaughter of animals and in compensation to farmers. The scale of the problem is such that it is deeply irresponsible and unfair to gamble, as the Government are doing, with farmers’ livelihoods and with the future of one of our best loved wildlife species.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentions farmers’ livelihoods, but has she seen the NFU briefing, which makes it clear that it regrets the need for culling and says that other methods, such as cattle controls and vaccination, are being deployed? But it says that culling is a vital component and misleading and emotive campaigns that play on sentimental affection for badgers and unfair depictions of farmers threaten to undermine the chance that we now have of getting on top of this horrendous disease once and for all.

[Caroline Lucas]

I have seen that briefing, but I would say that the emotion is coming from those on the Government Benches. The science is with the Opposition, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Lord Krebs said in the House of Lords just a few days ago, which makes it absolutely clear that quite a lot of misinformation is unfortunately being spread by the NFU and others about the seriousness of the issue in terms of how effective a cull can be. It is clear that the best that a cull can achieve, under strict conditions—not the conditions of these pilots—is a 16% improvement.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will take interventions in a moment.

The planned pilots would not have got anywhere near to that 16%, because they did not follow the rigour of the randomised badger culling trial and other Krebs reports.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will give way when I have made a little more progress.

The independent scientific group on cattle TB conducted the most thorough and rigorous study of bovine TB in the UK to date—the randomised badger culling trial. That trial took place over nine years, cost the taxpayer £50 million and destroyed 10,000 badgers. The report on the trial is described by Professor Denis Mollison, the independent statistical adviser to the RBCT, as “painstaking, expert and balanced”, and I commend it to Ministers as an exemplar of how to bring high-quality science into public decision making. The consultation from the coalition Government said of this RBC trial that it was the only one that was conducted as a rigorous scientific trial. The conclusions of that ISG report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, published in 2007, are well rehearsed, but they are worth repeating. It states:

“Detailed evaluation of RBCT and other scientific data highlights the limitations of badger culling as a control measure for cattle TB.”

It goes on to recommend

“that TB control efforts focus on measures other than badger culling”

because

“In contrast with the situation regarding badger culling, our data and modelling suggest that substantial reductions in cattle TB incidence could be achieved by improving cattle-based control measures.”

That is precisely the approach that today’s motion advocates.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady easily reads out what the report says, and she is right that it says “substantial reductions”. But is she not interested in more than substantial reduction, which is elimination of this awful disease? If so, does she agree that even Professor Bourne, who headed the study, has said that it quite clearly cannot be eradicated without eradicating it in badgers?

[Caroline Lucas]

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

The ISG concluded that

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

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

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

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

[Caroline Lucas]

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

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

as the hon. Gentleman rightly said,

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

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will make a little more progress before giving way again—as you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, this is a heavily oversubscribed debate.

A number of eminent individuals have also spoken out in opposition to the Government’s proposed course of action. Significantly, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, has refused to back the cull. In a letter to The Observer on 14 October, more than 30 scientists wrote that

“the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it… culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication.”

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

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I rather suspect that in Brighton Pavilion there are few dairy famers, if any, so will she agree to come to Shropshire and spend the day meeting my dairy farmers and the local NFU to hear their perspective on the crisis and how they believe it should be tackled?

[Caroline Lucas]

Even coming from Brighton Pavilion does not stop someone reading the science. I would like the debate to be based on the science, not on emotional calls from the Government Benches. Professor Lord Krebs, who devised the randomised badger cull and is firmly opposed to the cull, has said:

“I have not found any scientists who are experts in population biology in the distribution of infectious diseases in wildlife who think that culling is a good idea… People have cherry-picked certain results to try to get the argument that they want.”

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time, for which I am most grateful. The arguments about which scientists said what should surely be answered by a paper that was produced by DEFRA following a meeting, held by the Department on 4 April 2011, of the key scientific experts, including Lord Krebs and many other eminent scientists. Its No. 1 conclusion was:

“The science base generated from the RBCT shows that proactive badger culling as conducted in the trial resulted in an overall beneficial effect compared with ‘survey only’ (no cull) areas”.

Scientists at DEFRA were in agreement and came to that conclusion. That is a Government paper. Surely we should move on from going backwards and forwards on which scientists said what. There is some benefit to be had from a cull. It is not the only answer.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Lady responds, I remind Members that she is due to speak for 15 minutes or thereabouts and has already taken several interventions. I gently encourage Members to be economical with interventions. Many Members wish to speak in the debate. The more interventions, the longer we will take, and you can bet your bottom dollar that people will be queuing up to complain and ask, “Why didn’t I get called to speak in the debate?” Answer: the time was taken up earlier. Let us get on with the debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In order to do so, I go back to what I said just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, which is that Lord Krebs himself is saying that people are cherry-picking certain aspects to try to get the result they want. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the full set of recommendations from the document instead of those that he cherry-picked, he would see that in fact the vast majority of the evidence is that culling does not make a significant contribution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not give way; I want to follow what Mr Speaker said and make some progress.

The case against culling on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness is overwhelming. That approach is also potentially entirely counter-productive. The independent scientific group initially found a decrease in the disease of approximately 23% in the centre of the culled area but an increase of approximately 29% on neighbouring land outside the culled area. Those results can be explained partly by what has been termed the perturbation effect. That has been studied by Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who has also found that repeated badger culling in the same area is associated with increasing prevalence of the BTB infection in badgers.

The objective of the Government and the NFU is healthy cattle and healthy badgers. I agree with that, but how does culling improve badger health? Professor Woodroffe states unequivocally that it does exactly the opposite and that

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

Yet the Government’s approach ignores that evidence. As with the ISG trials, conditions have been imposed to try to limit the effects of perturbation, such as identifying natural barriers to badger movement, but these have generally been less rigorous than those recommended, with farmers essentially being encouraged to develop a “not in my back yard” approach to cattle TB without any real thought for the long-term impact on rates of the disease elsewhere.

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State warned that the cost to the taxpayer of tackling bovine TB will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. I agree that that is a very alarming prospect. That is why it is crucial that on this, as well as on the scientific evidence, he listens to the experts who, let me remind him, have concluded:

“The financial costs of culling an idealized 150 km² area would exceed the savings achieved through reduced cattle TB, by factors of 2 to 3.5.”

DEFRA has tried to keep the costs down by allowing licensed farmers to do the culling in its planned pilots and allowing for the licences to permit shooting, but by cutting corners in that way it undermines the very effectiveness that it claims for a culling strategy.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way on this important and passionately felt issue. I speak as a member of the British Veterinary Association, which states in its most recent report, first, that culling is necessary, and secondly, that there is no available vaccination that can address the reservoir of the disease within the wildlife population of badgers. Is she aware that this year 30,000 cattle will have to be slaughtered because of bovine TB? What are we going to do about that problem?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In fact, a vaccine is a lot closer to being developed than he and others suggest, so there are alternatives to culling. Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State made much of saying that there no alternatives. The tragedy is that there are alternatives but this Government seem extremely reluctant to bring them forward.

On tackling cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease, the ISG report states:

“Movement of cattle from infected herds in the periods between routine herd tests has long been recognised as a cause of new herd breakdowns, and it is generally accepted that most of the sporadic herd breakdowns in relatively disease-free areas of the country result from movement of infected animals.”

The evidence suggests that focusing on the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB is a distraction and that priority should instead be given to preventing the spread of the disease between cattle. That is why the motion calls on the Government to introduce a programme of vaccination, which eminent scientist and former Government scientific adviser Lord Robert May points to as an important tool in tackling TB. He says:

“What is particularly irritating is that we have the vaccines in the pipeline, but the commitment to really go in and test them is…not there”.

DEFRA confirms that. A statement on its own website reads:

“BCG…is the most suitable cattle TB vaccine candidate in the short term. Experimental studies show that BCG vaccination reduces the progression, severity and excretion of TB in cattle…and field studies show that it can reduce transmission of disease between animals.”

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that farmers’ voices are not unanimous on this issue? I have been contacted by Gloucestershire dairy farmers who support the vaccination model being developed by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and, in the short term, the model of meticulous biosecurity that has been advanced successfully by Gloucestershire farmer Steve Jones, who has managed to contain bovine TB despite the fact that his farm is in the very centre of the bovine TB area.

[Caroline Lucas]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is absolutely right that farmers are not speaking with one voice on this issue. Many of them recognise that we need an effective strategy but that culling is a costly distraction from achieving that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

Let me make some further progress.

DEFRA cites the EU prohibition on the vaccination of cattle against TB as the reason why studies to date

“cannot provide a definite figure for vaccine efficacy when administered to cattle under field conditions in the UK”.

Vaccinated cows can test positive for TB when using the current tuberculin skin test and the gamma interferon blood test, making it impossible to differentiate an animal that has been vaccinated from one that has the disease. However, a complementary test called the DIVA—differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals— has been developed, which confirms whether a skin test positive result is caused by vaccination or by TB infection. That is what should be validated and certified by the end of the year, according to the DEFRA website. It has the potential to open the door to a change in EU regulation. This Government should go to Europe now—they should have done so years ago—and prepare the policy framework to allow us to use the DIVA test; yet there are precious few signs that DEFRA or, indeed, the Government are pressing aggressively for the legal framework in which a cattle vaccine could be widely deployed. I echo the sentiments of those many Members who earlier this week urged DEFRA to stop hiding behind the excuse of EU law and to step up its efforts to change it.

A 2008 DEFRA paper on options for vaccinating cattle against bovine TB was endorsed by the NFU and concludes that

“BCG based vaccines will need to be used in conjunction with a DIVA test and that such a programme of vaccination could be cost-effective.”

It identifies the most significant barriers to use as legal and resultant trade implications. That was three years ago and we really should have made more progress than we have to date.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has said, biosecurity is a very important issue. Vaccination needs to go hand in hand with excellent biosecurity. According to Professor John Bourne, former chairman of the ISG:

“Despite some improvements, the government is still going nowhere near far enough with biosecurity”.

He went on to say:

“It is not badgers that spread the disease throughout the country; it is cattle”.

The most recent European Commission inspection of England’s biosecurity in September 2011 uncovered a catalogue of failures, including missed targets in the rapid removal of cattle infected with TB and

“weaknesses in disinfection at farm, vehicle, market and slaughterhouse levels”.

A belated crackdown has resulted in a slight improvement, but we need to go much further.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Steve Jones, a farmer who is deeply concerned about biosecurity. He says:

“Water troughs are a reservoir for TB because they are rarely cleaned out. It’s not uncommon for trough water to be left stagnating through the winter, collecting dead birds, rodents and various bacteria, only to be drunk by cattle in the spring. Badgers also use these troughs but it’s unfair to isolate badgers when the culprit is the bacteria soup itself. Making troughs badger-proof is not rocket science, but more fundamental is the adoption of better hygiene standards by the agricultural industry.”

Recent DEFRA data indicate that improving biosecurity would cost famers an average of £4,000, compared with £27,000 to deal with the TB herd breakdown. That is why the motion has a very strong focus, alongside its other measures, on comprehensive national biosecurity policy.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is important to recognise the wider context in Gloucestershire. One of the trials was going to take place in my constituency and farmers are very disappointed that it cannot go ahead for the moment. One of the first ministerial meetings that I had in this House 15 years ago was with the then Agriculture Minister, Jeff Rooker, and nothing has happened since. Does the hon. Lady not understand the frustration of farmers, including those in Gloucestershire? Does she not accept that, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has said, the British Veterinary Association says that the disease is being spread by badgers and that a trial cull is necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to get in and interventions will slow us down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will want to get to the end of her speech very quickly.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminding us that farmers are deeply concerned about the matter and feel frustration, but that frustration is because we have had years and years of inaction. Suddenly pulling a badger cull down from the shelf is the wrong way to respond to that frustration. The Government should have gone to the EU and made the case for the DIVA test so that we could get on with vaccination. All the evidence suggests that vaccination, combined with biosecurity, better hygiene and better husbandry, is a much better way of eradicating this horrible disease. No Member is complacent about the seriousness of the disease, but we differ on the most effective way of addressing it. The science is on the side of those who oppose the cull, because it shows that it is not the most effective way forward.

As I said, modern husbandry practices place chronic stress on intensively farmed animals, and a number of scientists are also pointing to the way in which cattle have been inbred for many years as a significant contributor to why cattle do not have the resistance to cope with such a disease.

I want to say a few words about vaccinating badgers. I agree that vaccinating wildlife should be given proper consideration, alongside the vaccination of cattle, yet the coalition Government have slashed funding for the badger vaccine deployment project. Only one of the six original five-year trials to learn how best to address some of the practical difficulties of vaccination is still under way. If those projects had gone ahead as planned, we would have been much further along the road towards finding a solution by now. That is exactly why farmers are frustrated. Instead, two years on, nothing more has been done.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying. Will she explain for a layperson such as myself why, although a third of the land mass of the United Kingdom is in Scotland, Scotland has not taken the decision to do what is being done in England? Wales has also withdrawn from the cull, so we are arguing about an English thing, not a British thing.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which brings me neatly to the situation in Wales, about which I know something. The Government there have used the same scientific evidence as DEFRA and have begun a five-year badger vaccination programme, starting in parts of Pembrokeshire. More than 700 badgers have been vaccinated since the start of that programme, which is about halfway through the land that it needs to cover. That part of the programme is on track to be finished towards the end of October. I hope that England will be able to learn from Wales and elsewhere to see how the problem can be tackled most effectively.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that until there is an oral vaccine, it is totally impractical to try to vaccinate the badger population? First, they have to be caught. Secondly, the person doing the catching has to be licensed by Natural England at huge cost, and thirdly, the cost is estimated at £2,250 per square kilometre.

[Caroline Lucas]

Trying to kill badgers is also extremely difficult. The original randomised badger culling trial was about killing badgers by capturing them in cages first, but the Government have dismissed that as too expensive. In doing so, they have reduced the likely effectiveness of the policy. It will lead to people trying to shoot badgers, which are difficult to kill outright because of their shape and size. That is extremely costly, and crucially it also spreads the disease even more widely. Vaccinating badgers is not easy, but it is a lot easier than shooting them in the way that the Government propose. It is also an awful lot more effective in stopping the spread of TB. That seems to me a good argument for not going ahead with shooting.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Lady give way again on that point?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Rather than pursuing an approach that is widely discredited, should not the Government invest in studies to determine exactly how and whether badger vaccination can work on a larger scale, in co-operation with organisations such as the National Trust and the wildlife trusts, which are already taking a lead in carrying out vaccine trials?

I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I can see that you are looking a little perturbed. Even were all that I have said about the science, the alternatives to a cull and its lack of effectiveness to be discounted, the Government’s proposals remain deeply flawed. Although the pilot culls in west Gloucestershire and west Somerset have been postponed, I am sure that other Members will want to raise concerns that the specific licensing criteria that were set out would not have been met. They will also want to raise concerns about the degree to which the Government’s current policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, despite advice from experts that the more a future culling policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, the more likely it is that their effects will differ and that there will be variability in outcomes between areas. Professor Bourne, chairman of the independent scientific group, claims that the key differences between his team’s methodology and the Government’s pilot culls—including a very different killing method and much longer killing period—are “significant”. Although he has been mentioned by those on the other side of the argument, he stated that the cull,

“could make TB a damn sight worse.”

The news that badger numbers are higher than anticipated suggests that methods used by Natural England to set the minimum and maximum number of badgers that can be killed across licensed zones are inaccurate.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not.

That inaccuracy makes it impossible to guarantee that local extinctions will not occur. I welcome the fact that the Government and the NFU have concluded that the pilot culls cannot take place this year. They must now look again at other problems that have been identified, and abandon their culling policy altogether.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An eight-minute limit on speeches has been imposed, but we want to try and get everybody in. Fewer interventions will ensure that everybody will be able to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman will hear what my right hon. and hon. Friends say when they speak on this issue with some passion.

May I commend the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency, based in Ryedale in my constituency of Thirsk and Malton and, in particular, its work on progressing vaccinations for badgers? I note that it is already undertaking badger vaccines. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) asked about the cost of those individual vaccines, and it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that.

In the pause before an eventual cull, I believe that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee can make a major contribution precisely on the vexed issue of vaccination, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. Not only do we have the cost and difficulty of vaccinating badgers, but there is currently no effective test to tell the difference between vaccinated and infected cattle—the wider issue raised by the hon. Lady. It is, therefore, impossible to identify clean animals from infected animals for the purpose of export.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry to intervene so soon, but that is not correct. The test to differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals—the DIVA test—exists and is ready to be used once we get permission from the EU. The obstacle to the problem is getting that permission—there has not been much effort on that—not that the test does not exist.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am afraid that is a point of disagreement, which is why I believe there is a role for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to examine the state of the science. Members of that Committee can use their role to encourage the Government to use good relations with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and colleagues in the European Parliament who have co-decision, to make plans to lift the ban on exports. That raises the wider issue of how we can encourage FERA to develop the badger vaccine, and encourage the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to look fully at developing the efficiency of a cattle vaccination.

There is one issue that I regret the hon. Lady and Team Badger do not accept. Government Members recognise the issue of badger welfare, but I would like to see the whole House rise up and agree that it is unacceptable that almost 60,000 cows in calf—they were carrying an unborn calf—were slaughtered in 2010 and 2011. My hon. Friends have already alluded to the human grief suffered by farmers, and this year everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong. We have seen a rise in fuel costs for transporting animals, and in the cost of feed. There has been bad weather; the potato crop is going wrong and pig farming is going wrong—everything is going wrong and farmers are battling with the elements.

We are talking about herds of cattle that have been raised by generations of farmers, and when a herd is slaughtered, that lifeline can never be regained. The contribution of such herds to the rural economy should not be underestimated, and they will be lost and gone for ever. I would like the House to unite to show that we care for the loss suffered by farmers, and that we recognise that this broader wildlife and countryside issue goes to the heart of the rural economy and farming in this country.

I have the honour of representing two livestock marts—that in Thirsk is the largest, or joint-largest, fatstock mart in the country. Farmers who produce those animals live in fear of one rogue beast coming into the herd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

I accept that, not least because the reservoir involves different species of animals. Clearly, we do not deal with badgers in the same way as we deal with wild buffalo in the Northern Territory of Australia. That is blatantly clear, but if we are to address the issue of the reservoir of badgers, there are only two ways of proceeding. Either we vaccinate them—I shall come back to that—or we have to cull them.

I hope that the whole House accepts that no Minister from any political party wants to court the unpopularity or, indeed, face the security challenge caused by this issue. Let us be frank: I, the Minister, other Ministers and officials are all under special security arrangements because of the threats from a small minority of opponents. None of us wants any of that. If there were a better way, we would adopt it. To pretend that we are somehow not interested in vaccines is, I have to say, absurd. The fact is that we have a licensed injectable badger vaccine; no one has mentioned that the Government are making some money available to pay for it where people want to use it. If wildlife trusts want to continue to roll it out, that is fine, but the costs of rolling it out on a national scale are so incredible that I think it is wrong to suggest it is a panacea.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) referred to an oral vaccine for badgers. We believed this would be likely for many years, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, for two reasons, it is now further away than ever. First, the intellectual property will be difficult to get hold of; it is owned by a New Zealand institution. More importantly, the promising first tests have never been repeated. All the tests carried out showed much worse problems. That is because the vaccine is being destroyed in badgers’ acidic stomachs.

On cattle vaccine, I can tell the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that, yes, it has been developed and we know, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said the other day, that it is not very effective, although it has an element of effectiveness—about 60%. Yes, too, the DIVA test—differentiation of infected from vaccinated animals—is well on the way to being perfected. The hon. Lady is right about all that, but neither of them is licensed or officially proved and they still have to go through all the processes, which takes time, however much effort is put into it. What the hon. Lady seriously underplayed, however, is the European context when it comes to the cattle vaccine. I can assure her that, almost from day one of taking office, or within a matter of weeks, I pressed the Commission on this issue. I remember talking to the then Commissioner John Dalli, from D G SANCO, who said, “When you have your licensed vaccine and your licensed DIVA test, then we will start thinking about it, but don’t forget that it is only you, Ireland and possibly France that want this. All the other member states will be against it. Lifting the ban will take many years, so the question is what can be done in the meantime.”

[Caroline Lucas]

The case that the right hon. Gentleman describes is not the same as the discussions that I know have taken place at the European Commission, with very different messages coming back. Of course Britain is the only one that wants this vaccine at the moment, because we are the only ones who have had to face cattle TB this badly, but the suggestion that it is years away is simply not the case. I have in front of me a text from DEFRA’s own website, which talks about things happening by the end of the year. [Interruption.]

[Sir James Paice]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on the generous way in which she introduced this debate. It is a difficult debate, but the hon. Lady should be recognised for allowing people to intervene and ensuring that a proper debate took place. She knows that I come from a different perspective, but I congratulate her again on introducing the debate so well.

Bovine TB is a complex, infectious, zoonotic disease in animals and in man. It is caused by a bacterium that presents itself as a serious and significant risk to animal health, and it is especially prevalent among the UK cattle herd and among wildlife—mainly badgers. It is one of the UK’s most significant animal health issues. We discussed earlier in the week the significant cost posed by this disease to the economy—effectively 100 million smackaroos a year. We are talking about 100 million quid every year; that is what this disease costs, and we need to accept that it is a major problem or a crisis.

Frankly, some of the debate has been tainted by misinformation and by some emotion—emotion that is misplaced in this argument, because this nation deserves the House debating this matter properly and with some authority. No one takes the decision to cull wildlife or to cull our national milk herd lightly. For people to suggest otherwise is criminal, and we should recognise that and state it clearly.

We should also recognise some of the myths that have been put about. It is said that this is about town versus country, which is utter piffle. This is about animal health; it is about animal welfare and good animal husbandry; it is about our milking herd and our cattle; and—most importantly—it is about the food that we eat and are prepared to tell our consumers to eat. We should not lose sight of that.

People say that this cull is a shot in the dark, which will lead to the indiscriminate killing of wildlife. That is misinformation, which has the potential to “felon set” those who are asked to carry out the cull. We should consider the consequences of careless talk about indiscriminate shooting. There is also the nonsense about a readily available vaccine that will solve the problem. There is no vaccine that will have an impact on wild badgers that are already infected. The reservoir of badgers that carry the disease cannot be controlled by a vaccine.

“All badgers will die” is another piece of misinformation. It is said that this is about the mass slaughter of animals. As many Members have pointed out—as, indeed, the Government have pointed out—it is not about mass slaughter, but about a targeted pilot in a limited area of the United Kingdom that will be cordoned off. That cordon sanitaire will allow target shooting.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious remarks. However, in condemning misinformation, he is also spreading it. He says that vaccination has no effect on infected badgers, but in fact it slows the progress and the severity of the disease. It reduces the risk that the animal will become infectious, and therefore reduces the chance that one badger will pass it to another or, indeed, to cattle.

[Ian Paisley]

That is a relevant point. I shall say more about the vaccine issue in a moment.

The hon. Lady commended the work of the British Veterinary Association, of which I am a long-term member. Let us hear the expert views of that association. Its most recent report on bovine TB states:

“Whilst the slaughter of cattle found to be infected with TB…has been an essential part of the strategy to control the disease in cattle for many years, the BVA believes that targeted, managed and humane badger culling is also necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a significant contributor to the persistent presence of bTB. In addition, the BVA believes that risk-based biosecurity, surveillance and Farm Health Planning at a national, regional and farm level is essential for the control”

of the spread of the disease. In other words, we need a cocktail of measures that includes culling on a limited basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is always a privilege to be called to speak in the Chamber, certainly in such an important debate, but let us be clear: the issues being debated today are not pleasant ones. The problems facing the farming industry, and by extension the Government, are neither easy nor straightforward. Likewise, it is important to state early on in my contribution that I am a keen supporter of animal welfare, and I take no pleasure whatsoever in advocating a pilot cull. However, as I shall set out, I believe, sadly, that we have no choice.

To be absolutely blunt, bovine TB is out of control, akin to wildfires raging across our countryside, causing widespread damage.

[Caroline Lucas]

The myth that the disease is out of control needs to be nailed. Fewer cattle have been slaughtered because of BTB each year from 2008 to 2011. Those are the figures. It is not to underestimate how serious it is, but the idea that it is out of control is simply wrong.

[Julian Sturdy]

I do not agree. I talk to many farmers and when one looks across the country, and in certain key areas in the west, one can see that it is out of control and that it is causing huge impact on our farming community and the families, on which a number of hon. Members have already touched.

I appreciate that Members on both sides of the debate have already quoted a number of figures, but the striking one for me is that more than 30,000 cattle will be culled this year due to TB—one every 15 minutes. That is five times the number in 1998. Therefore, when we discuss animal welfare, we should consider the welfare of those affected cattle as well as the welfare of badgers.

First, I want to join a number of Members in clarifying a few key points about today’s high-profile debate. Increasingly, this choice is being presented as cull versus vaccination. Such an interpretation is deeply flawed. Yes, vaccination must be part of a wider TB crackdown, and Members will look at the Government’s policy and see why the badger vaccination is to play a vital role over the coming years, as will, and rightly so, stronger cattle control obligations. However, we must be honest about vaccinations. First, they will not cure infected badgers. Thus, those badgers that have already contracted TB will not be cured by any vaccination currently available. Yes, it might slow the disease, but ultimately they will not be cured. Secondly, the development of an oral vaccine, which ultimately is the only way we will vaccinate the badger population against this destructive disease, is sadly some way off.

Several Members touched on the problems with a cattle vaccine in the short term, no one more thoroughly than my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). Sadly, the reality is that, alongside cattle control and future vaccinations, a pilot cull is essential in the short term. The Government’s wider long-term plans to control TB will prove successful only if they are supported by a pilot cull. Put simply, we must break the cycle of infection if we are serious about tackling TB.

The second point I wish to discuss is compensation for farmers who have to slaughter infected cattle. As Members might know, I was a farmer before entering Parliament in 2010, although not a livestock farmer—I have no personal interests in that regard. It is often argued that livestock farmers receive compensation for slaughtered animals, but it is not adequately explained that the compensation does not cover any consequential losses to the farmers. Losing cattle has huge knock-on effects for a herd because of the progeny it loses, with breeding lines that have been built up over many years being wiped out in an instant by the disease.

Farmers also have to meet the costs of additional cattle control measures and frequent testing for the disease. The economic consequences for small farmers and the strain put on their families, which several Members have touched on, can be enormous. The economic factors can have a direct impact on local communities and the rural economy. Of course, there is also an increasing cost to the general taxpayer, as has been mentioned. More than £500 million has already been spent on compensation for farmers, and the figure is estimated to rise to over £1 billion within the next decade unless we act decisively.

Finally, I come back to the idea of animal welfare, which is ultimately the key element of the debate. In a situation in which TB has become so terribly out of control, taking proper action to secure the future of both badgers and cattle is genuinely the responsible thing to do. By doing so, we will be safeguarding the welfare of badgers and cattle in the years ahead. The suggestion that farmers should simply keep their cattle locked up, hidden away from fresh pastures and natural conditions, completely flies in the face of animal welfare, yet some farmers are now doing just that because allowing their herds outside would be akin to a death sentence, given the prevalence of TB in certain areas.

In conclusion, if a practical and effective alternative existed, I would back it. Sadly, no such choice exists at the moment. Therefore, this debate should not be framed as one that is about either vaccination or culling. Rather, it should be a question of a rampant disease that causes widespread damage to our countryside, to sustainable farming and to long-term animal welfare. We must choose action, not inaction, to preserve sustainability and health in our countryside, for both the wildlife and the livestock industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I declare an interest as I am a cattle keeper; indeed, over the past five years I have had a herd that went down with TB. My comments will not be made on a personal or anecdotal basis, and certainly not on an emotional basis, but rather they shall be based on sound science.

It is interesting to reflect a little on the history of this issue. Until 1950, bovine tuberculosis was endemic in British cattle herds. As a zoonotic disease that can be transmitted from animals to humans, that was obviously a danger, so the Government decided to eradicate it. They were spectacularly successful, and by about 1960 there were few instances of bovine TB in cattle herds. That situation was maintained for about 20 years, but in 1971 a dead badger was found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis on a farm where cattle had gone down with the disease, and from then on it became ever more apparent that badgers were involved in the spread of the disease.

The Badger Trust website states that bovine TB

“may also be caught through contamination of feeding and watering sites and from infected wildlife, including badgers”.

That is what led to the trials by Lord Krebs, which I commend as a piece of scientific work, but only in as far as they went.

When that work was concluded, Sir David King, chief scientific adviser at the time, was asked to prepare a report. I do not have time to go through that report, but I recommend it to hon. Members. It is an extraordinarily balanced and insightful piece of work that needs looking at. Sir David King came to the conclusion that by building on trials by Lord Krebs, and by identifying their weaknesses, pilot schemes could be introduced that would lead to the minimisation of bovine TB in this country.

Sadly, in 2007 the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rejected that report and we have had five wasted years. Although the Government introduced extra measures for farmers, nothing was done to address the wildlife reservoir, and five years on, we must deal with a much more difficult situation than in 2007. Sir David King’s report is a wonderful piece of work, and I commend it to Members.

Let me say a little about vaccination. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the most appropriate vaccine to use at the moment is the BCG vaccine. That is true because it is the only vaccine. It was developed in about 1910, first used in 1921, and whenever and however it is tested, its effectiveness ranges from about 60% to 80%. In some circumstances, it is not effective at all, and it was withdrawn from human use in this country in 2005. We are told that a wonderful new vaccine is on the horizon—new technology—but no, we will still be using the vaccine that I was given 50 years ago, as, I am sure, were many other hon. Members.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat misleading. The DEFRA website states that

“in January 2012 an application for marketing authorisation…was submitted to the UK’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate…for assessment”

in relation to the BCG vaccine. It was submitted almost a year ago, and the website states that it will come to fruition in a year. The DIVA test is also ready to go. The idea that we are going back to 1910 is simply misleading.

[Roger Williams]

My point is that it is the same old vaccine—we have not made progress and there is no magic bullet.

I am sticking my neck out a bit, but I cannot think of any farmers, and certainly not in my constituency, who, given the choice between culling badgers or having an effective programme based on vaccines for eliminating bovine TB in the cattle herd, would not choose the vaccination route. They would be very strange if they did not in those circumstances. Farmers regularly vaccinate their stock for various diseases, but only because those vaccines have proved to be efficient and effective.

We have reached the stage at which we cannot wait any longer for the promise of an effective vaccine. I support the Government in going ahead with their pilot trial culls of badgers, to take forward the work done by Lord Krebs and to tease out how we can better eliminate the disease in both badgers and cattle. That would benefit farmers throughout the country, and wildlife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

This has been a comprehensive debate, and I genuinely thank everybody who has taken part in it and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

There is much that we agree on. We agree that bovine TB is a terrible disease that is inflicting huge amounts of harm on people in our farming communities around the country. However, this is not about a split between city and rural or farmer and non-farmer, and it certainly is not about a split between those who want a cull and those who want to do nothing. Those of us who are against the cull are against it because we do not believe that it is the right way to protect cattle.

I will finish now, Mr Speaker, because I want to make sure that we get the chance to put the motion to the vote.

Question put.