Sustainable Development Goals

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Not in the slightest. I will set out in detail tomorrow, on a visit to the Institute of Development Studies in Brighton, our plans to expand what we want to do, particularly in the area of universal health coverage. Perhaps I will bump into the hon. Lady on the pier down there.

There are three vital areas that Labour would prioritise to tackle inequality: universal health coverage, human rights and climate change. I will say more on those issues in a moment, but first I would like to look at this Government’s approach. We regret that the Government failed to bring forward legislation to enshrine in law both parties’ manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. It fell to Labour MPs and the good offices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) to ensure that the landmark Bill that would do so was passed in this House.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but does she accept that trying to set out the dividing lines between the parties on the subject of international development breaks a consensus that has existed for a long time? I think the outside world looking in would fail to understand that it is this Government, whom she seeks to criticise, who have met the 0.7% target.

[Mary Creagh]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Lady, but she too led an Opposition day debate on trade justice in 2002—I read the report of it in Hansard only last night—so I shall take no lessons on having Opposition day debates on this matter from her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

That is very kind. Unlike many Government Members who discovered a new-found interest in development as soon as they were appointed to their roles, I have a long-standing interest in the subject. Let us start with my volunteering for Oxfam in Sri Lanka for two months in 1990. Let us move on to my visit to Rwanda and eastern DRC—

[Mrs Spelman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The title of the debate is “Sustainable Development Goals”, and Members have come into the Chamber to discuss sustainable development goals. We have heard from the hon. Lady for 15 minutes, with no discussion of them. A document produced by the Select Committee of which I am a member is tagged to the motion. It is entitled “Agreeing ambitious Sustainable Development Goals in 2015”. Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the hon. Lady had wanted a DFID score card, that is what it should have been called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

The Secretary of State will have her chance when she makes her speech.

We want girls to enjoy their education free from the threat of child or forced marriage. However, Tory MEPs voted against the European Parliament’s report on sustainable development goals and on the section on women’s sexual and reproductive rights. We want to tackle the economic conditions and supply chains that tolerate the obscenity of 168 million child workers. We want to ensure that children affected by conflict have the psycho-social services that they need and the right to go to school. We want members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities to be free to love and marry whomever they wish. We want the disabled to participate fully in society, and we want protection for indigenous peoples.

We want workers to enjoy decent work, decent pay and rest breaks, and to have the freedom to join a trade union. We must not have a repeat of the terrible Rana Plaza disaster. We will therefore reverse this Government’s ideological decision to stop funding for the International Labour Organisation.

[Mrs Spelman]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that Members on both sides of the House came together and succeeded in putting into the Modern Slavery Bill—which this Government have enacted—a clause on transparency in supply chains, precisely to deal with the exploitation she describes? Labour Members also supported that measure.

[Mary Creagh]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for that. I believe that that was a Labour amendment, but it had cross-party support and we welcomed that.

Eradicating poverty will be possible only if we tackle climate change. If we do not keep temperature rises to below 2º C, millions will fall back into poverty. The Prime Minister says very little about his wind turbine these days. He is a prisoner of his divided party, which is split over whether climate change even exists. For Labour, climate change will be at the centre of our foreign policy and integral to our plan to change Britain.

There is a real opportunity to address climate change this year. The United States, the EU and, most importantly, China, are all showing a willingness to act. At the Paris summit in December, a Labour Government would push for global targets for reducing carbon emissions, with regular reviews towards the long-term goal of what the science now tells us is necessary: zero net global emissions in the latter half of this century. In addition, we must ensure that the sustainable development goals have a specific goal on climate change—something that the Secretary of State has repeatedly failed to back.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the journey time to Curzon Street, but I am sure she is aware that the journey time from London Euston to Birmingham international will go down to 31 minutes. That will result in an under-utilised runway becoming competitive with some of the London airport runways, which could help relieve congestion in the south-east.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a very important point. The impact on western Coventry and Birmingham international airport cannot be overstated. When I was 18, the journey time from Coventry to London was two hours, and the £9 billion upgrade has got that down considerably to an hour. To reduce it still further would be a phenomenal achievement in one’s own lifetime.

Badger Cull

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am in touch with farmers all the time, and I have had a meeting with the National Farmers Union. I have met farmers in Derbyshire and, indeed, all over the country.

The wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust are all vaccinating badgers on their land. The Zoological Society of London and the wildlife trusts are pushing for volunteer involvement in badger vaccination, which would greatly reduce the costs. According to a report published today by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for which I pay tribute to the Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh):

“The vaccine has been available for 3 years but the government should now produce a clear strategy for using it.”

That is a pretty damning indictment of what the Government have been doing for the past three years. As a result of Labour’s investment, we now have a cattle TB vaccine and a DIVA test to differentiate infected and vaccinated cows.

The Select Committee report is critical of the Government’s approach to cattle vaccination. It says that the debate on cattle vaccination is unclear, and that

“the government must accept a great deal of the blame for this”.

It says:

“The quality and accuracy of the information that Defra has put into the public domain has been insufficient and inadequate.”

The Government have delayed field trials of the cattle vaccine after misinterpreting EU rules, and they must now undertake those trials as soon as possible.

I must make it clear, however, that neither a vaccine for badgers nor a vaccine for cattle will work on its own. We need a coherent policy framework to tackle all aspects of this complex disease. The Independent Scientific Group has suggested several key principles that could form the basis of such a framework. Page 175 of its report states that

“the movement of TB infected cattle...poses the greatest threat to the disease security of uninfected farms and particularly so in the case of farms in low disease risk areas”.

According to the report, cattle movements

“are also likely to make a significant contribution to the local spread of infection in high risk areas.”

Page after page of the report lists different control strategies for low-risk and high-risk areas, some of which were implemented by the last Government and some of which are now being adopted by the present Government.

We welcome, for instance, the risk-based trading strategy on which the Government have embarked. There must be transparency in the marketplace to prevent farmers from unknowingly importing infected cows into their herds. However, the Government have not investigated, for example, the 40% of farms in high-risk areas in the south-west that have consistently avoided bovine TB. What are those farmers doing to protect their farms? How are they trading, what is their biosecurity, and what are their husbandry practices? Can they be replicated? What can we learn? Until we get to the bottom of that, we will not find a solution.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

As I think the hon. Lady is beginning to make clearer, it is not a case of either vaccinating or culling. The Government have introduced a package of measures, including security measures. At the heart of the vaccination question, however, is the challenge of how to persuade 26 other European Union member states to import the meat from vaccinated cattle when there are questions to be answered about the efficacy of the BCG vaccine and the efficacy of the skin test.

Agricultural Wages Board

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I will give way later, but I would like to make some progress.

The Government’s own figures suggest that up to £280 million could be lost over 10 years in wages and in holiday and sick pay—a quarter of a billion pounds taken out of areas represented mainly by the parties on the Government Benches, where the cost of living is estimated to be approximately £3,000 more than for those living in urban areas. Up to £35 million a year could be lost in wages alone—again, those figures are taken from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment.

I want to know what happens when money is taken from rural families on the breadline. Who will pick up the tab? People with children will have recourse to income-related benefits, such as tax credits, council tax benefit and housing benefit. Reducing rural workers to the poverty line will take money out of workers’ pockets and transfer it directly to their employers. We, the taxpayer, will pick up the in-work welfare bill. That will add to the deficit. As a strategy for rural growth and deficit reduction, this thoughtless abolition will be catastrophic.

My second point is that the abolition will be bad for the food industry; it goes against business needs. Britain’s biggest manufacturing industry, the food production sector, needs more skilled workers. Instead, the Government are encouraging employers to race to the bottom on pay. That will see skilled workers turn their backs on the industry—and become MPs instead!

There are 2.5 million unemployed people in the United Kingdom, 1 million of whom are young people. There are 25 million unemployed people in the European Union, yet the horticulture industry still says that it needs to bring in workers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme because it cannot find reliable British workers. It simply defies economic logic to suggest that a race to the bottom on pay is the way to attract the skilled new entrants that the industry needs.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady unaware or simply ignoring the fact that the AWB was debated at length during the consideration of the Public Bodies Bill in both Houses of Parliament? Secondly, is she aware of the impact assessment’s conclusion that current wage levels are generally above the minimum, and that, with wage-setting practices and modern working practices in agriculture, wages are unlikely to be eroded, as farmers will need to attract their workers? That was its conclusion.

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted that the right hon. Lady refers to the AWB and the Public Bodies Bill, the so-called bonfire of the quangos. The Bill certainly brought her a degree of notoriety, as it contained her proposals to sell off the forests and scrap protection for farm workers. She mentions the impact assessment. I am just quoting the Government’s figures: their estimate is as high as £280 million over 10 years, or with a best estimate of £260 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Clearly, the national minimum wage does not cover it all, which is why it was not abolished under various previous Tory Governments. Various Conservative Prime Ministers understood that if someone’s house was provided by their employer, they were in a uniquely vulnerable position when it came to negotiating their wages.

Many small farmers want to keep the AWB so that they do not have to become employment specialists. They want to get on with running their business. Instead, this change will add to their regulatory burden. The Farmers’ Union of Wales, where 12,000 workers are covered by the AWB, opposes abolition. It has said:

“Many farms in Wales run with relatively few staff, or indeed with family labour. The Agricultural Wages Board is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual members of staff.”

Without the AWB, each farm business owner will have to negotiate terms and conditions annually with its work force. They will make mistakes, as employers sometimes do, and might end up in employment tribunals as a result.

I want to quote again from one of the consultation responses. A farmer in Kings Lynn said:

“I disagree strongly with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board...the last thing I want to do with my limited management time is to negotiate wages with my 6 full-time and up to 30 part-time workers some of whom have worked for me for 30 to 40 years and have a strong personal relationship with me. I do not want to damage this by having to negotiate wages with them.”

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) asked why farming was different. I think that that answers his question.

We have talked about gangmasters and licensing and, before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on the issue of workers’ accommodation. The Government’s impact assessment indicates that 25,500 farm workers have a house or cottage provided by their employer, and that another 4,700 live in other accommodation, such as caravans. The agricultural wages order defines “other” accommodation and guarantees all farm workers that it is fit for human habitation, safe and secure, and that every worker should have a bed for their sole use and be provided with suitable and sufficient free drinking water and sanitation.

Abolishing the AWB will remove those guarantees on housing for farm workers. The accommodation will no longer have to be fit for human habitation, safe or secure. Workers will not be guaranteed a bed for their sole use, and there will be no requirement to provide drinking water or sanitation. I should like to cite the case of one of the firms that wrote in support of the AWB’s abolition, Suffolk Mushrooms. Last year, the firm was fined £10,000 for failing to have a safety certificate for the boiler in the men’s accommodation, and for various hazardous working practices that put workers’ lives at risk, including leaving high-level safety gates open. After the case was won, the Health and Safety Executive inspector, John Claxton, said:

“Suffolk Mushrooms invested more than £1.5 million refurbishing its factory and mushroom growing equipment, yet failed to spend even a few hundred pounds to keep its employees safe”.

[Mrs Spelman]

Obviously the laws already exist to enable the Health and Safety Executive to fine employers, in every sector of the economy, when they break the law. Does the hon. Lady not accept that she is perpetrating the myth that farmers set out to exploit their workers? The vast majority of farmers listening to the debate today would be affronted by that suggestion.

[Mary Creagh]

That was a good effort from the right hon. Lady. The HSE will clearly continue to exist, but I am citing a case that happened last year, not at some other point in time. I ask her whether she thinks that conditions will get worse or better when the AWB is abolished.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not know the detail of that case, so I do not know whether the planning permission was granted by the council before or after the planning reforms were made. As I have said, putting sustainable development at the heart of the planning system means that greater consideration is given to sustainability in flood-prone areas. A number of things can be done to improve sustainability in flood-prone areas but, without knowing the specifics of the case, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am very disappointed at the party political nature of the right hon. Lady’s comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) behaved admirably after the 2007 and 2009 floods, not least through the flood recovery grant. We are still waiting to hear from the right hon. Lady whether any money will go to the people who have been left homeless and destitute by the recent floods. She lit the fuse on the expiry of the statement of principles by cutting flood defence spending by 27%. She uses the figure of a 7% cut—

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Lady promised an update on flood insurance in the spring. She has talked about vouchers and now she is finally talking about insurance. Will she get a deal with the Treasury before the recess?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady clearly prepared that question before I gave my answers. I will give a detailed reply to the House before the recess. We are close to the end of the negotiations. As a former commercial negotiator, with experience in such matters, I know that one does not provide a running commentary on the state of negotiations.

[Mary Creagh]

Homes across the country are facing another night of severe rain and more homes are at risk of flooding. People are very anxious and upset because of the right hon. Lady’s total lack of progress on this issue. She has not given an answer. The deal runs out on 1 July 2013. Will she get a deal with the Treasury, and will it happen before the recess—yes or no?

[Mrs Spelman]

How can I have lit a fuse underneath this problem when I am not a Labour politician and it was the Labour Government who agreed with the Association of British Insurers that they would not renew the statement of principles? That is when the fuse was lit. They placed a smoking bomb in the same container that said, “Sorry, there’s no money left.” We have found a way forward that will provide for the affordability and universality of flood insurance.

Flooding

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update the House on flooding.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Over recent weeks we have seen extraordinary amounts of rainfall, culminating in the flooding earlier this month when parts of Sussex experienced almost two months’ rainfall in just 36 hours, and most recently over the past weekend.

Some areas in Cumbria, Lancashire and west Yorkshire saw a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours, but Cumbria had the highest rainfall, at 210 mm, with 200 mm in Honister, compared with between 80 mm and 100 mm elsewhere in the region. That extreme rainfall caused rivers to rise to unprecedented levels in some cases, and to flooding being experienced on Friday and overnight into Saturday.

I do understand the devastation that is caused to people whose homes and businesses are flooded; it has happened to me. We expect the number of properties affected to be at least 1,200 as final numbers are collated throughout the impacted areas. My thoughts go out to all those who have suffered flooding, especially those in the worst affected areas, including Crawshawbooth, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. I know that local communities rallied round as the recovery operation began in earnest, and I hope that all will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible.

I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the excellent response from our front-line emergency services. I am delighted to report that, thanks in no small part to their efforts, there was no loss of life and few serious injuries. I am also very grateful for the diligent work of the Met Office and the Environment Agency staff in the Flood Forecasting Centre. Their forecasts, from the middle of last week, foresaw the event unfolding and meant that much work was possible in advance to lessen its impact.

Teams of Environment Agency and local authority staff were out before the flood waters arrived, clearing drains, testing defences and preparing flood basins. Flood warnings were issued to more than 7,000 properties, and flood warning sirens sounded in Todmorden and Hebden Bridge.

Protecting our communities against flooding is a vital area of the work of government, and I am pleased to say that the Environment Agency estimates that 11,000 properties were protected in the areas affected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary measures. For every property flooded, another 10 or so were not.

In Carlisle, the defences built following the 2005 floods have now prevented a repeat of that devastating event twice: in 2009 and this weekend. On Saturday, river levels in Carlisle were actually higher than they were in 2005.

In our changing climate, we will never be able to prevent flooding completely, as we have seen over this past weekend and earlier in June. Through the excellent preparations and work of front-line responders, including the police, the fire service, the Environment Agency and local authorities, and through the more than £2 billion of investment being made by the Government, however, we are better prepared for flooding than ever before.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House on the flooding in the north of England over the weekend, and I echo her tributes to the emergency services and voluntary sector, who worked to evacuate homes and keep people safe. I also thank the Environment Agency and local authority staff, who worked throughout Friday night to ensure that flood defences were activated in places such as my constituency of Wakefield, which was flooded in 2007, and the Lower Aire valley in Leeds.

Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to businesses that have offered help to businesses affected? Hon. Members on both sides will be relieved that no lives were lost, but the severity of the floods has meant that the communities affected face months of disruption and upheaval. What contact did the right hon. Lady have with the Cabinet Office civil contingency secretariat? What detailed information does she have on the number of homes and businesses affected in the areas of Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Todmorden?

What will happen to those who have been made homeless by the floods, and what housing arrangements are in place—particularly for the frail elderly and the disabled? What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the recovery effort? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is here. Which Government Minister will lead on the flood recovery and on providing support for the affected communities?

Following the floods of 2007 and 2009, the Government set up a flood recovery grant as a one-off payment to councils to help households seriously affected by the floods. Do the Government intend to help councils and communities in that way this time? If so, when can communities expect that help?

When Wakefield suffered from floods in 2007, the loan sharks were out on the streets there the very next day. What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that crisis loans are available to families left destitute by the floods, to ensure that families do not fall prey to loan sharks?

What estimate has the Department for Communities and Local Government made on the cost of flood recovery to local authorities? Is the Bellwin scheme likely to be activated by the floods? In 2007 and 2009, central Government covered 100% of local authority costs under the Bellwin scheme. Is the right hon. Lady planning to do the same again? What contact has she had with the Department for Education to ensure that children whose schools have been flooded continue to receive their education? Will she review the flood warnings given by the Environment Agency and local authorities, as issues have been raised about the timeliness of the warnings?

When I spoke to representatives of the Association of British Insurers this morning, they said that the initial estimate was that about 500 properties had been flooded and that the likely cost to insurers was in the low tens of millions of pounds. Can the Secretary of State give an estimate of the value of uninsured losses? What support will the Government give to the under-insured or uninsured? Will she encourage the loss adjusters to get into the affected areas as quickly as possible to provide help to people?

Every £1 invested in flood defences saves £8 in costs further down the line. This weekend, we had a reminder once again that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. The right hon. Lady mentioned how much the Government are investing in flood defences, but that is a 30% cut from the 2010 baseline. In the light of what has happened, will she undertake to review the figure? Will she reassure the House that she will resist any pressure from the Treasury to cut flood defence spending in next year’s comprehensive spending review? Communities that have been devastated by flooding should not have to go through that terrible experience again.

[Mrs Spelman]

I certainly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the businesses that have helped with the situation on the ground—as they always do, in my experience. Every time I have visited a flood situation I have found that the whole community has rallied round, and I applaud that.

The Department has a procedure for dealing with flooding at three levels of risk: low, medium and high. Civil contingencies arrangements are not triggered at the medium risk of flooding, which is what we faced this weekend. We have arrangements in hand that cover all flooding eventualities. They were activated the week before last in Sussex and over the weekend in the north-west and west Yorkshire. The current state of play is that 1,200 homes have been registered as flooded, but the number could still rise as it becomes more accurate over time. I have a breakdown by community, if the hon. Lady is particularly interested, but without a doubt the most affected communities are Todmorden, Walsden and Callis Bridge, with 540 properties flooded, followed by Hebden Bridge, with 245 properties flooded, and Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge, with 145 properties flooded. The numbers then reduce, but the flooding extends across a very wide area.

Homelessness is principally a responsibility of the local authority. The local authority in each of these areas takes a lead role in the provision of homes for those affected. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our actions are joined up across Whitehall.

Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we make specific grants available to assist local authorities, with £21 million-worth of grants provided this year and a higher figure to be provided in subsequent years of this Parliament.

On crisis loans, in the first instance the flood-affected can turn to a local authority for help through social funds. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the trigger for the Bellwin formula is 15% of a local authority’s income, and current estimates from the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Secretary of State, suggest that it is unlikely to be triggered in this case. The scheme is there to deal with a catastrophic situation facing a local authority, and any final decision on this will not be made until we know the full extent of the damage.

The local authority has primary responsibility for ensuring that schools are safe to return to and, in turn, informing parents.

We now have available a sophisticated system of flood warnings. Perhaps it is helpful for me to make all Members of the House aware of the new facility whereby anyone in a flood-affected area can register to receive a text message flood warning. There has been a very substantial uptake of this service. However, it often increases after an event has occurred, so the Environment Agency plans to proceed with text message flood warnings on an opt-out basis in future. Where households do not have a mobile phone to receive a text, it can be received in digital form on a landline, so no one should be unaware of a flood warning. In addition, I commend to the House the use of flood wardens who can knock on people’s doors to forewarn them, especially in the case of the vulnerable and the elderly. Communities that have been flooded often subsequently seek volunteers in this role.

On flood insurance, we are at an advanced stage in intensive and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry on alternative arrangements for when the statement of principles expires this time next year. As the hon. Lady will be aware, in 2008 the insurance industry notified her party, when in government, that the statement of principles would come to an end. Her party in government did not find a successor to the principles but, as she will have heard me say, we are well on our way to doing so. The average insurance premium is roughly £300 a year, while the average estimated claim in this regard is so far estimated to be £15,000. That shows the benefit of households being insured.

On flood defences, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s figure of a 30% cut. She is not comparing like with like. If we compare how the previous Government funded flood defences in their last four years in office with our commitment to fund flood defences for the four years that succeeded their loss of power, we see that the reduction is just 6%. When she considers the mess her party left the Government in, she will recognise that that was no mean achievement. In addition, a new method of partnership funding whereby third parties come in to help to get some of these new flood defences built has brought an extra £72 million into such works in its first year of operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The Government made it clear in the water White Paper that we published last autumn that we want to see increased connectivity. Water companies are already joining up their sources of supply to help them to move water from areas of plenty to those of greatest need. For example, interconnection exists between United Utilities and the west-east link, and as my hon. Friend will have seen in the press, there is a bulk trading proposal between Severn Trent Water and Anglian Water. Local connectivity is the key, and Ofwat will bring forward proposals for the next price review that will encourage that.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on a shining and rare example of a successful Government policy. Since the drought was declared, it has been pouring with rain and she is in danger of doing a Denis Howell. Does she believe that people with boreholes should comply with any hosepipe ban in their area?

[Mrs Spelman]

In her kind remark at the beginning, the hon. Lady recalled the plight of one of my west midlands predecessors, Denis Howell, who will be forever remembered as the Minister for Rain who tried to make it rain in 1976. He is fondly remembered.

I encourage people who have borehole capacity on their property to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and abide by the restrictions that apply to those who do not have a private supply of water. That is good practice.

[Mary Creagh]

There is some debate about the Under-Secretary of State’s hosepipe and whether it was left on. We know that the hosepipe ban has prompted—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

That is the first time that I have been accused of misleading the House when I have described something as a matter of debate.

The hosepipe ban has prompted a borehole boom. Taking from the groundwater supply affects everyone, because that is the water that fills the reservoirs, rivers and aquifers used by the public mains water supply. The Secretary of State’s water White Paper that was published in December—her definition of “autumn” is slightly unusual—astonished the water industry, because it proposed delaying the reform of water abstraction until 2027. What plans does she have in the meantime to tackle unsustainable water use by the few to preserve drinking water supplies for the many?

[Mrs Spelman]

The reform of the abstraction regime has, in effect, commenced. At the drought summit in May last year, the stakeholders in the industry agreed that we needed to take a more flexible approach to the present 30,000 abstractions a year to ensure that the water gets to everybody who needs it. The Environment Agency was praised publicly by the stakeholders at the third drought summit for the flexibility and transparency that have been achieved in the existing abstraction system. That does not mean that there is no scope for further improvement. As I said in the water White Paper, because of the challenge of climate change, we need to reform abstraction.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman’s tone, because he is ignoring the fact that we commissioned the Walker report when we were in government. He is also ignoring the action we took, not least to prevent customers from being disconnected. I am sure that many of his constituents were affected in the early days of water privatisation when hundreds of thousands of customers were cut off—disconnected—from their water supply for non-payment of bills. We changed that. We changed the law and effectively instigated a right to water, which we think is a basic human right and is required for basic dignity and decency. I am sure that affected many people in the south-west.

The Bill is welcome because it lays down powers exercised by the Secretary of State to provide finance for the huge infrastructure investment that is needed to clean up the Thames, which has had very little investment since the great sewer drilled by Bazalgette 150 years ago. However, there are a number of questions that the Secretary of State must answer. First, why is the Bill so short? We are in a time of drought not seen in this country since 1976, so why is she focusing on the little picture rather than the big picture? Why was the water White Paper that was due in spring 2011 not published until December 2011? Her colleague the Minister with responsibility for water is now promising a draft water Bill this spring, so can she confirm that there will not be a full water Bill to take forward the other measures in Anna Walker’s report in the Queen’s Speech this May—yes or no?

[Mrs Spelman]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will be happy to answer this point in detail, but we do not need new measures to do some of the important things we need to do right now to tackle this drought. I mentioned the drought summit. As we saw last year, flexibility in terms of abstraction licences helped our farmers and we did not need hosepipe bans.

The extra time we took for the water White Paper improved it, putting resilience at its heart, and the climate change risk assessment vindicated that decision. I am sure that hon. Members would like the time to debate, through proper pre-legislative scrutiny, the measures set out in the water Bill. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that a draft bill would come forward within months and I have repeated that commitment today.

[Mary Creagh]

I take it from that answer that there will not be a full water Bill in the Queen’s Speech this May. On the issue of abstraction, the proposals so far in the water White Paper talk about reforming the abstraction licence with an end date of 2027. The Secretary of State has had three drought summits—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I do not have those figures. Does the hon. Gentleman have them? Perhaps he will share them with the House in the debate.

We accept the argument that the south-west requires additional help to keep water affordable, but stopping there misses the point. Ofwat, the independent regulator, estimates that a fifth of households are already spending more than 3% of their income on their water bills, yet Ministers have failed to bring forward any plans to tackle high bills, apart from in the south-west, which has the highest bills in the country. There, around 200,000 people spend more than 3% of their disposable income on water bills, but in the Thames region there are a staggering 1 million people in the same predicament, so surely we should be working towards extending help through a national affordability solution. Without one, the effect of the Government’s £50-a-year payment in the south-west will soon be wiped out by price rises; prices will rise by more than inflation in each of the next three years. The assistance is welcome, but decoupled from wider reform, it will provide little lasting help on water affordability. I hope that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

We know from Ofwat that the groups most vulnerable to water poverty are single parents, pensioners and jobseekers. When we were in government, we introduced WaterSure, a national affordability scheme paid for by a cross-subsidy from water customers, and paid only to metered households with three or more children or to people with certain medical conditions, but the limitations of the scheme are apparent, because not everyone in water poverty has three or more children, and many pensioners and jobseekers will not be eligible for the scheme.

There is a further problem of penetration of WaterSure. Only a third of eligible households access the scheme, so there is big issue relating to the role of the water companies in educating their customers about WaterSure and the role of places such as jobcentres in making sure that people have access and understand their entitlement.

[Mrs Spelman]

When the hon. Lady’s party was in power, what did it plan to do about the fact that two thirds of people eligible under WaterSure were not taking it up? Will she acknowledge, therefore, that with the baton being passed to the present Government, who continue to run the WaterSure policy but with more determination to enable more eligible households to take it up, we have supported that with the introduction of guidance on social tariffs to all companies?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Lady might want to answer her own question. We commissioned the Walker report, which said that Ofwat should do a six-monthly league table of water companies showing the best and worst performers. She has had 18 months. Has she implemented the recommendations of the Walker report? She has made her own guidance to water companies on social tariffs voluntary, not mandatory, and I fail to see how allowing them to choose whether to implement them will help customers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Clearly nutrition is a lead for the Department of Health, but it is quite clear that meat forms part of a balanced diet. I am very proud of the fact that producers in this country produce meat to the highest standards of animal welfare, food and hygiene anywhere in the world. As we have just discussed, we actively promote the consumption of food that is produced to those very high standards within Government and among the wider public.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Labour believes that public procurement should be reformed to play its part in our economic recovery and to support jobs, skills and apprenticeships here in the UK. The Government spend £2 billion a year on food and are well placed to support British farmers and food businesses by buying British. I heard what the Secretary of State said and was unclear about the percentage that is sourced from UK producers, but her latest figures show that the Department bought less than a third of its food from UK producers in 2011. Why is that, and what does she intend to do about it?

[Mrs Spelman]

As we have discussed, the situation has not changed since the hon. Lady’s party was in office. The difference is that the Government have placed a requirement on all Departments to procure food to British standards. As a shadow Secretary of State, she cannot encourage the Government of the day to breach WTO rules by calling for British products. That is the distinction. We want to encourage the industry to produce more food to the high standards that we require and to encourage Government Departments and the wider public to consume food that is produced to that very high standard.

[Mary Creagh]

The Secretary of State is confused. DEFRA Ministers are simply failing to deliver jobs and growth in the UK food industry, which is the country’s largest manufacturing sector. We have seen how unfair competition from abroad for egg producers has been allowed—DEFRA is supine. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the shadow food Minister, has asked many questions, yet No. 10 has not revealed how much of its food is sourced from the UK. There is confusion across Government: some Departments reply on what British produce they bought, and some reply on food that is sourced to UK standards. Will she have a word and ensure that the next time guests sit down for dinner with the Prime Minister, the food they enjoy is 100% UK-sourced and that it supports jobs in this country?

[Mrs Spelman]

There is no confusion at all here. Government buying standards are mandatory across all Departments. They require food to be procured to British standards. That is compatible not only with WTO rules but with the rules that cover the operation of the EU internal market—the very basic framework that any Secretary of State or shadow Secretary of State should understand.

The hon. Lady also completely overlooks the importance of our drive on exports. I remind her that in the last year alone, there has been an 11.4% increase in food and drink exports from this country to the wider world.

Bovine TB

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Today I am setting out the next stage in the bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England.

Bovine TB continues to be a major problem in England. In 2010, nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England and the cost to the taxpayer is set to top £1 billion over the next 10 years. The problem is particularly bad in the west and south-west of England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to their being affected by the disease, causing much distress and hardship.

As I explained in my statement in July, cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions, and the removal and slaughter of infected animals, remain the foundation of our TB eradication programme. We have already strengthened cattle controls and will continue to do so. The Government are working in partnership with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to further promote good biosecurity and to provide advice and support to farmers. We also intend to invest a further £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible.

We know that to tackle this disease we need to look at each and every transmission route, and that includes transmission from badgers to cattle. Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, but there are practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to administer it. As I told the House in July, we are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but usable and approved vaccines are still years away and we cannot say with any certainty when they will be ready. In the meantime, we cannot just do nothing.

This terrible disease is getting worse and we have to deal with the devastating impact it has on farmers and rural communities. It is difficult to quantify or put a monetary value on that, but a report by the Farm Crisis Network describes the feelings of panic, stress and emotional devastation for farming families as they repeatedly have to send their cows to be slaughtered.

I think that we would all agree that we need to stop the disease spreading further, bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. Evidence tells us that unless we tackle the disease in badgers, we will never eradicate it in cattle. No country in the world that has TB in its wildlife has been able to eradicate it in cattle without addressing it in the wildlife population. In July, I set out revised proposals for controlling the disease in the badger population. In order to reduce TB in cattle in the worst affected areas we proposed to allow a controlled reduction carried out by groups of farmers and landowners, as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. The policy would be piloted in two areas in the first year.

Following the responses to the consultation that we launched in July on draft guidance to Natural England, the policy has been further refined. I am now in a position to announce that we will go ahead with a pilot of the policy in two areas next year, to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. An independent panel of experts will oversee and evaluate the pilots and report back to the Government, and we will then decide whether the policy should be rolled out more widely.

This has not been an easy decision to make, and it is not one that I have taken lightly. I have personally considered all the options and evidence, and at present there is no satisfactory alternative. Today, I am publishing a detailed policy document, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office after the statement. We need to strike a balance between taking the actions needed to control and eradicate the disease, maintaining a viable cattle industry and using our resources in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Badger control licences will be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, to enable groups of farmers and landowners in the worst-affected areas to reduce badger populations at their own expense. Guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence will have to meet to ensure that the pilots are carried out safely, effectively and humanely.

Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified through the randomised badger culling trial, we can expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years relative to a similar unculled area.

Licences granted by Natural England will be subject to strict conditions based on evidence from the randomised badger culling trial, which are designed to ensure that the result is an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where culling takes place. Applications for licences will be considered only for an area of at least 150 sq km over a minimum of four years, and with the pilots to be conducted by trained and proficient operators. Groups of farmers will have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers at the edge of culling areas such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs, to minimise the perturbation effect in places where disturbing the badger population could cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area.

The Department has assessed the known and estimated effects of badger culling and vaccination, and its veterinary and scientific advice is that culling in high TB incidence areas, carried out in line with the licence criteria, will reduce the number of infected badgers, and thus the weight of TB infection in badger populations in the treatment area, more quickly than vaccination. It will therefore have a greater and more immediate beneficial impact on the spread of TB to cattle and the incidence of infection in cattle.

Nevertheless, we still see a useful role for vaccination, particularly in the future, and I have listened carefully to the views of groups that would like to help develop a vaccination programme. To support and encourage vaccination, DEFRA will make available up to £250,000 in each of the next three years to help meet the costs of badger vaccination in accordance with a badger control plan, with priority given to areas where culling is licensed. We will also support staff or volunteers of voluntary sector organisations wishing to train to carry out vaccination.

I look to the farming industry to show that it takes its responsibility very seriously and that it is committed to delivering the programme effectively, safely and humanely. That will be carefully monitored in the pilots, and on an ongoing basis if the policy is rolled out more widely.

To select the pilot areas, I will invite the farming industry to bring forward a shortlist of areas, from which DEFRA will select two. Those two areas will then be invited to apply for a culling licence. Natural England will assess the applications against the licence criteria and decide whether to grant them a licence.

After the conclusion of the six-week pilots, from what we observe and learn, and taking into account the evaluation by the independent panel, we will take a decision on whether to roll out the policy more widely. Following the pilots, if we decide to proceed with a wider roll-out, a maximum of 10 licences will be granted to start each year.

Ensuring public safety is a key concern. In finalising the policy, we have worked closely with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to scope out the role of the police in supporting those licensed operations.

I know that there is great strength of feeling on the issue, but I also know that we need to take action now before the TB situation deteriorates even further. We need to tackle TB from all angles, using all the available tools. I am acutely aware that many people oppose badger culling and I wish that there was a current satisfactory alternative. However, we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in the areas worst affected by bovine TB. The impact of that terrible disease shows us that we need to act now. We cannot keep delaying.

In making the decision, I have considered all the evidence and have listened to the full range of views. Having listened to all sides of the debate, I believe that this is the right approach.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We recognise that bovine TB is a devastating disease—that is why the Labour Government spent £50 million on randomised badger culling trials. Any decision on a badger cull must answer four key questions. Is it science-led? Is it cost effective? Is it humane? Crucially, will it work?

The independent scientific group on cattle TB, which reported on Labour’s trial culls, stated:

“After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report… we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”

The Secretary of State quotes scientists who told the Government that TB in cattle will be cut by 16% over nine years if the cull is carried out by trapping and then shooting the animals. However, her culls will not be carried out in that way. They will depend on farmers hiring people to free-shoot badgers at night—a method that has never been scientifically assessed as a way of controlling bovine TB.

Perturbation occurred in the first three years of Labour’s trial culls when badgers were humanely captured. What scientific advice has the Secretary of State sought or received on the likelihood of free shooting increasing the perturbation effect, which will reduce that 16% net figure still further?

Is the cull cost-effective? The right hon. Lady’s statement was curiously silent on the costs to farmers, yet DEFRA estimates that it will cost farmers £1.4 million per cull area. Farmers will need to prove they have the funds to complete the cull in the event that one pulls out or sells up. How will she access those funds in the event of a default? Who will access those funds, and on what basis? How will the money be held—in an escrow account or in joint names? How will liability be shared between farmers?

What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer taxpayers that the costs of completing a four-year cull will not fall on them in the event of those indemnities disappearing or becoming the subject of protracted legal wrangling? How many staff will the right hon. Lady need to issue those cull licences? What is the cost to the taxpayer of hiring those extra staff at Natural England, a body that has shed nearly 500 staff since her disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review?

We know that the Home Secretary has warned the Secretary of State against proceeding with the cull. Will she confirm that the culls will not start until the Olympic games are over? Will she confirm today that trained firearms police will be needed to police any public protests against the culls?

In the Secretary of State’s 2010 consultation, she estimated the costs to the police at £200,000, yet today’s report has revised those costs up to £2 million per cull area. If 10 cull areas are licensed every year, that is a compound cost of £20 million a year to the police. Will she confirm that DEFRA will meet those costs in full? If so, from which budget, given that the Department has had a 30% cut? How will local police forces access those funds?

In written answers to me, the right hon. Lady estimates that the cull will save the taxpayer £2.9 million in each cull area over 10 years. With 10 cull areas set to go ahead from 2013, that is a saving of £2.9 million a year, which is just 3% of the £85 million cost of testing and compensation to farmers. Will she therefore confirm that the costs of bovine TB will continue to be borne by the taxpayer?

The third question the Secretary of State must answer is this: is her cull humane? In 2010, 48 people were prosecuted for offences against badgers and 29 were found guilty. The police wildlife crime unit is concerned that illegal badger persecution will be carried out under the pretext of culling. Who will monitor cull licences and how will the conditions of the licence be monitored? She mentioned a six-week cull period, but how can she ensure that farmers will not go beyond that?

Between 60,000 and 120,000 badgers will be killed over a four-year period depending on the number and size of cull areas, yet in the Secretary of State’s statement, she curiously failed to mention the new national badger count announced this week, which will cost £871,000. Surely she should have commissioned that survey before announcing her pilot culls. How can we measure the impact of a cull on the badger population when we have no scientific baseline? What measures is she taking to prevent the extinction of badger populations in cull areas, and how will she ensure we remain in compliance of our international obligations under the Bern convention?

Finally, will it work? The scientific group warned that

“several culling approaches may make matters worse”.

Is not the Secretary of State in danger of sleepwalking into a disaster by licensing badger culls, the method of which is unproven and untested, and which could make things worse? The Government have constructed the ultimate game theory test for farmers in TB-hit areas: join in the cull or face increased TB in the herd from badger perturbation. How will the views of farmers and landowners in areas affected by perturbation be collected and considered? What happens to farmers who do not wish a cull to proceed on their land? How will the Secretary of State ensure the health and safety of the people carrying out the cull and disposing of infected carcases, the police firearms officers policing the cull and the protesters who will undoubtedly turn up at cull sites?

Today’s announcement is bad news for wildlife, bad news for farmers and bad news for the taxpayer. The cull will not be cost-effective or humane and it will not work. In “Yes, Minister”, Jim Hacker said: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.” Today the Secretary of State has turned her back on the scientific advice. Page 11 of her own document states:

“It is a matter of judgement, not science, whether the farming industry can deliver an effective, coordinated and sustained cull.”

I hope she has got everything crossed.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady asked a lot of questions so I will answer them as quickly as I can. First, I should point out that this is a science-led approach to the pilots and that when in office the previous Labour Government spent £50 million on trials. The science is important and this Government have responded to what was learned from those trials. We learned that culling could be more effective if the boundaries of the control area were firm ones, to reduce the perturbation effect. In addition, the ground she cited—she said that the cost would be prohibitive—overlooks that fact that the farmers have agreed to pay. I encourage the shadow Secretary of State to look at the long tail from that trial. Five and a half years after the analysis, the trial continues to provide a benefit in reduced TB incidence in those areas.

The method to which the hon. Lady referred—controlled shooting—is commonly used to control other wildlife populations, such as deer, foxes and rabbits. We therefore have reasonable confidence in our assumption that the method will be both effective and humane in relation to badgers, but, to be absolutely clear, those who undertake the culling will be required to have deer-stalking level 1 proficiency or equivalent, and they will be required to undertake an additional course to ensure that they understand badger physiognomy.

On cost-effectiveness, in the end, it is up to farmers to choose whether or not to be part of a controlled reduction of badgers in their area, but the Government make a requirement that groups of farmers form a limited company that puts aside in a bank account the four-year cost of the culling programme plus a 25% contingency, which deals with the hon. Lady’s point about the contingency cost.

Natural England’s existing staff will contribute to the programme. The overall cost to the Government of £6.22 million over 10 years must be seen in comparison with the overall cost of the unchecked progress of the disease, which will be £1 billion a year or more to the taxpayer over the next 10 years. The costs need to be seen in the context of the overall burden on the taxpayer.

I have had helpful and constructive conversations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it is up to the police to deal with the precise operational details of ensuring public safety throughout the pilot process. We should not simply extrapolate an estimated cost from the pilots, as, I am afraid, the hon. Lady just did. Part of the point of the pilots is to establish more precisely what the exact cost will be. I have agreed with the Home Office to share those policing costs in so far as additional and reasonable costs are incurred.

On humaneness, we can be assured that Natural England will monitor the cull licences very carefully. If any farmers should be so minded to exceed the six-week period, they would obviously lose their licence. I do not believe, therefore, that that will happen.

It is important to remember that the species is protected but not endangered. The last time the population was surveyed—in the 1990s—there were between 250,000 and 300,000 badgers in Great Britain. Of course, the previous Labour Government had ample opportunity to launch a survey if they had wanted to, but this Government have seen fit to do so. That is important in ascertaining the population in the controlled areas. We have satisfied ourselves that the Bern convention would not be breached by the policy that I have proposed.

Finally, I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. She said that a matter of judgment and not the science alone drives this decision. If the previous Government had exercised their judgment and acted when they had the chance, the disease, and the cost of dealing with it, would not have escalated to the point it has reached today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Two things have emerged. We had more than 2,000 replies to the consultation, which showed that carbon is reported in very different ways. One challenge is to find a way in which it can be reported meaningfully so that investors know which company to invest in, because they understand the information they receive. Secondly, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on the content of company accounts—narrative reporting, as it is known. We need to synchronise the issue because carbon reporting would be in a set of company accounts. I perfectly understand the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008 in that regard.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Climate change is the biggest market failure the world has seen and the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to introduce carbon reporting to correct the failure is imminent. That decision is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to create green growth and drive the development of low-carbon products and services across UK plc. With youth unemployment at record levels and mandatory reporting supported by Britain’s largest employers, how many jobs does she estimate would be created in the UK’s green economy if it was introduced?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady shares entirely with me an appreciation of how important it is that we make progress in that area. She will have seen how the coalition Government have committed to challenging targets in order to change our economy to a low-carbon basis. In the spirit of being on the same page on this matter, I can say that I am keen to do what I can to transition the economy in that regard. On this specific question, however, I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), we need to synchronise carbon reporting in a way that investors can understand. At the moment, there are different requirements on companies to report in different ways. We need a meaningful measure of carbon reporting in the spirit of achieving that low-carbon economy.

[Mary Creagh]

The Secretary of State signally failed to answer my question. There is no estimate in the impact assessment of the number of jobs that the new products and services would create. When the global recession struck in 2008, Labour’s future jobs fund created green jobs for young people in wildlife trusts, country parks and green charities across the country, but they are now on the dole. Carbon reporting will help us to move to the low-carbon economy. When did she last sit down with the Chancellor, one to one, to discuss the autumn statement that he will make on Tuesday and how DEFRA will play its part in creating the conditions for green jobs and growth to tackle the crisis?

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not think it is my job to share in advance with the hon. Lady the content of the autumn Budget statement. As I just said, I share with her the clear vision about opportunities to create jobs if our economy is transitioned into a low-carbon economy. If her party felt so passionately about that, why did it not proceed with what she now claims we should be doing during its 13 years in office?

Bovine TB

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Today I am publishing the Government’s bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England. The programme sets out a comprehensive and balanced package of measures to tackle TB in cattle, badgers and other animals. Nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2010 because of bovine TB, which cost the country £90 million in the past year alone. The problem is particularly bad in west and south-west England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to being affected by the disease.

Cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions and removal and slaughter of infected animals, will remain the foundation of the TB eradication programme. Measures to address bovine TB in cattle remain the cornerstone of efforts to control the disease right across the country, and existing measures will be strengthened. Measures already introduced include a significant expansion of the areas on more frequent routine TB testing and the DNA tagging of cattle to prevent TB reactor fraud.

Planned new measures that I am announcing today include reducing compensation payments for reactor animals from herds where TB tests are significantly overdue and removing some of the exemptions to the requirement to test animals before they move out of herds under annual and two-year routine testing. The Government will work with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to promote good biosecurity and provide advice and support to farmers, as well as investing £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible. The programme also sets out the proposed way forward on controlling the disease in the badger population, including plans to license groups of farmers and landowners to carry out science-led, strictly controlled culls of badgers in the areas worst affected by TB.

This terrible disease is getting worse, and we have to deal with the devastating impact that it has on farmers and rural communities. There is also the effect on the farming economy and taxpayers. Bovine TB will cost us £1 billion over the next decade in England alone if we do not take more action. First, we need to stop the disease spreading even further, and then we need to bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. We cannot go on like this. Doing nothing is not an option. Many farmers are desperate and feel unable to control the disease in their herds. If someone has repeatedly had to send their cows to be slaughtered, one can understand the desperation that they feel. We know that unless we tackle the disease in badgers we will never be able to eradicate it in cattle. We also know that no country in the world has successfully controlled TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.

Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, and we are investing in research, but there are serious practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to dispense it. We are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but a usable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much further away than we thought, and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready. We simply cannot afford to keep waiting. We already have a robust set of cattle controls in place, but we need to accept that in some parts of the country they are not enough. Unless we tackle each and every transmission route, including from badgers to cattle, we are likely to see the situation deteriorate further.

There is great strength of feeling on this issue, and that is why I have carefully considered the scientific evidence and the large number of responses to our public consultation. I know that a large section of the public is opposed to culling and that many people are particularly concerned about whether it will actually be effective in reducing TB in cattle and whether it will be humane. I wish that there were some other practical way of dealing with this matter, but we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in areas worst affected by bovine TB.

With the problem of TB spreading and no usable vaccine on the horizon, I am strongly minded to allow controlled culling, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. Badger control licences would be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners to reduce badger populations at their own expense. In light of concerns raised in the public consultation, a number of amendments to the proposed policy have been made. Key stakeholders will now be further consulted on the resulting draft guidance to Natural England, which is the licensing authority for the culling activity. The draft guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet to ensure that any culling is carried out safely, effectively and humanely. Initially, in the first year, the culling method would be piloted in two areas to confirm the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. An independent panel of scientific experts will be asked to evaluate the pilots.

Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified from the randomised badger culling trial, we would expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years. The Government will not attempt to eradicate the disease nationally by culling, and there would be no culling over the whole endemic area at the same time. However, controlled culling can make an important contribution in the worst affected areas. In the event of a decision to permit culling following the consultation, any culling licences granted by Natural England would be subject to strict conditions, based on evidence from the RBCT, designed to ensure that culling results in an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where it takes place.

Applications for licences would be considered only for a cull area of at least 150 sq km, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient experts and paid for by groups of farmers and landowners over a minimum of four years. Farmer groups would have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs at the edge of culling areas, in order to minimise the effect of perturbation, where disturbing the badger population can cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area. If culling is ultimately authorised, we will look to the farmers involved to show that they take their responsibility very seriously and that they are committed to delivering culling effectively and humanely.

I can assure the House that I have not reached this decision lightly. I am very aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate. However, having now considered all the evidence and all the views, I believe that this is the right way forward.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Opposition know that bovine TB is a major animal health problem. We understand the desperation of farmers affected by this devastating disease. That is why, in government, Labour set up the randomised badger culling trial. It cost £50 million and remains the most extensive scientific study over a 10-year period on the effects of culling badgers, protecting cattle and reducing bovine TB. The report concluded that

“the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results…suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”

Labour’s approach in government was led by that science, and we continue to be led by it. The Secretary of State talks of a badger vaccine. However, when she became Secretary of State, she cancelled five of Labour’s six trials a vaccine for badger TB. Why did she not give those vaccine trials a chance to work?

The Government’s announcement today is led by short-term political calculation. These pilots will not change the science. The Secretary of State’s solution of the free shooting of badgers has never been tested. It is therefore not supported by the science. There is strong evidence that localised culling, which she proposes, significantly increases the TB risk in neighbouring herds, as badgers move out of cull areas and spread the disease, particularly in the first two years. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that farmers outside cull areas and non-participating farmers inside cull areas are protected from bovine TB? The scientists who met at DEFRA on 4 April 2011 stated that vaccination, which she proposes, is unlikely to be effective at reducing the risk of infection. Her impact assessment states:

“For farmers in cull areas, monetised costs exceed expected monetised benefits.”

So the costs to farmers will exceed the benefits. That is hardly a compelling case to sign up for a DIY cull.

The Secretary of State said the costs of bovine TB will reach £1 billion over the next 10 years. What estimate has she made of the reduction in that £1 billion cost to the taxpayer over the next 10 years with her proposed cull? The taxpayer will still pay for TB testing, monitoring, issuing licences and judging the scientific effectiveness of her cull. Will she tell the House how much the cull will cost the taxpayer? The science shows that there will be, at best, a 16% reduction in TB cases after nine years. Does that mean a reduction in taxpayer costs of about the same amount?

The science also states that culling must be wholesale and sustained. What will the Secretary of State do if the results of the one-year pilot show that the cull has made things worse? How will she deal with farmers who sell up, move on or decide that they no longer want to be part of the cull? Will DEFRA pay for the cull if that happens? Has the Secretary of State seen the letter in The Times of Wednesday 13 July from seven members of the original independent scientific group? It states that

“there are no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades. If the Government decides to proceed with this untested and risky approach, it is vital that it also instigates well-designed monitoring of the consequences.”

There is obviously some doubt in the Secretary of State’s mind that this is a humane way to proceed. What kind of information will reassure her that killing badgers in this way is humane? How will she monitor and measure the effectiveness of the free shooting pilots? How will she prevent the pilots from becoming an open season on badgers elsewhere in the country? The Badger Trust estimated in 2008 that there were about 300,000 badgers in Britain. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of badgers that will be culled, and of the time frame? The guidance states that the aim is to reduce the number of badgers in control areas by 70%. What measures is she taking to prevent the localised extinction of badgers? What contact has she had with the Bern convention secretariat? Does not the policy she announced today put us at risk of breaching the convention on protecting our wildlife?

The impact assessment estimates that the additional policing costs to deal with protesters against the cull will be £200,000 per year. Devon and Cornwall police are losing 700 officers over the next four years. Which Department will pay for the police required in cull areas—the Home Office, which has had its budget cut by 20%, or DEFRA, which has been cut by 30%? What advice has the Secretary of State had from the Home Office and what public order issues has it identified? Will she publish that advice for the House?

The right hon. Lady promised farmers a science-led approach on bovine TB; today she has turned her back on the science. She promised that she would do something on bovine TB; today she has shown that she will do anything. The right hon. Lady has achieved the almost impossible: with the forests sell-off, her inept handling of wild animals in circuses and now an ill-thought-out badger cull, she has shot herself in the foot not once but three times—a hat trick unmatched by any other Minister.

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.

The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.

The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.

The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.

The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.

On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.

The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.

Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.

I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The coalition Government are committed to relieving the unnecessary burden of red tape on all of business, but we understand that pressures can be particularly burdensome on SMEs. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals in the consultation, he will see that these concerns have been taken account of, and I am sure that if he participates in the consultation and further reinforces the views he has expressed in the Chamber, it will all add weight to the outcome of the consultation.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I start by saying how unhappy the Opposition are, along with the National Farmers Union, that DEFRA questions have been castrated to a mere 45 minutes, although I understand the Government’s desire to give more time to their stellar parliamentary performer, the Deputy Prime Minister?

In opposition, the Conservative party promised to

“bring forward the date that the largest companies are required to report on carbon emissions”,

yet the consultation the Government published yesterday gives companies an option to do nothing. We heard earlier this week that the hawks in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are holding up Cabinet agreement to the UK’s fourth carbon budget. Is there a Cabinet split on carbon reporting as well?

[Mrs Spelman]

We must set the record straight, for the sake of all hon. Members. It was the official Opposition who asked for the Deputy Prime Minister to be given a 15-minute slot, which had to come from one of the longer sessions of oral questions. If one analyses the number of questions that Opposition Members have tabled, one will see that the answer lies in their own hands. A glance at the Order Paper will confirm that twice as many Members on the coalition Benches tabled questions to DEFRA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

We are calling for a substantial reduction in single farm payments, but we do not share the Commission’s view that a cap should be introduced. The capping of farms whose size made them eligible would result in the fragmentation of farm structures, which would prevent agriculture from becoming more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The CAP has two key roles: ensuring security of food supply and environmental management. On 17 December, The Daily Telegraph reported a secret stitch-up between the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy of France: no reform of the CAP in return for French support for the British rebate. Yet the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference in January:

“Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments”,

but her colleague the Farming Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), contradicted her in the Farmers Guardian saying:

“Farming could not survive without direct payments…we will be suggesting a long, long transition from the current CAP system.”

We know the Prime Minister has full confidence in all his Cabinet Ministers, but who is in charge of CAP negotiations?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady should rely a little less on speculation reported in newspapers. She has been a politician for long enough to know that we should take what we read in the papers with a pinch of salt. She obviously was not listening when I very clearly set out our position. Her Government’s position on the CAP over their 13-year period in office was, frankly, not credible: they suggested that direct payments should end immediately. If the hon. Lady does not know enough about farming in this country to know that farmers cannot manage at this point in time without their direct payments, she has a lot of learning to do. Our new position is much more realistic: it is to look forward to the time when subvention will not be required, while in the intervening period helping the industry to adapt so that it is more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh]

OECD reports show that UK food prices have risen by more than 6% in the last year, and families across the country are feeling the pain. The Foresight report says we need to increase production not just to feed the UK, but to meet growing demand for food across the world. The Environment Secretary told her officials she wanted to be briefed on the price of a loaf of bread. Can she tell the House by how much the price of a loaf has gone up in the last six months, and why does her newly published sustainable development strategy make no mention at all of the CAP, food or farming?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure the hon. Lady does the household shopping in the same way that I do, and it is interesting that the hike in world food prices has not yet fully translated through into the cost of the grocery bill. This issue is a concern not only in the UK, but in other countries. It was also a concern to her Government during the last price hike in 2008. She should also be concerned about the farm-gate price of food: farming input costs are rising, making it extremely difficult for farmers to provide us with food at a reasonable price. That is one of the reasons why we made it a priority in our business plan to support British food and farming in a way that her Government did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) indicated during his Department’s questions that he would publish the relevant Bill in April. Obviously, Parliament is in recess for a significant amount of that month, but the Bill will be published some time around Easter.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the production of the forestry panel, but the trees are not yet out of the woods. This Sunday, thousands of people will gather in forests across the country to keep up the pressure on the Government to abandon their sale of 100,000 acres of England’s forests. People will be asking me in Dalby forest why their local organisations have been excluded from this panel. What should I tell them?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that the independent panel will hold its meetings in different parts of England, as was the original intention with the consultation, to come to people who have concerns about forests. A huge number of organisations—more than 70—applied to go on the panel, which will engage them all by seeking information, views and evidence from them all so that everyone feels involved.

Forestry (England)

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I would first like to say that I take full responsibility for the situation that brings me to the House today. Let me make it clear that we have always placed the highest priority on preserving access and protecting our forests, but the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, published well before we launched the consultation, gave the wrong impression of the Government’s intentions. That is why I am today announcing three steps that will allow for more measured and rational debate about the future direction of forestry policy.

First, I have taken a decision to end the consultation on the future of the public forest estate, and I take full responsibility for that. I am doing so because it is clear from the early responses to the consultation that the public, and many hon. Members, are not happy with the proposals that we set out. Secondly, the Government will support the removal of the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is in Committee in the other place.

Thirdly, I would like to announce to the House that I am establishing an independent panel to consider forestry policy in England. It will report to me with its findings in the autumn. The panel will advise me on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, and on the role of the Forestry Commission and the public forest estate. The panel will include representatives of key environmental and access organisations, alongside representatives of the forestry industry. I will shortly publish its membership and terms of reference.

If there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits that they bring. My first priority throughout this period of debate has been securing a sustainable future for our woodlands and forests. On many occasions in the House last autumn, Ministers gave assurances that our aim in all of this has been to do more to maintain and enhance the public benefits delivered by forestry—from recreational access to wildlife protection, and from tackling climate change to sustaining a wide range of small businesses. That is why my ambition to provide a better future for our forests is undiminished.

We have already heard positive suggestions about how we can do that for heritage forests and all other woodlands. We have spoken to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust, the wildlife trusts, the Ramblers Association and other groups. The Forestry Commission has itself acknowledged that change is needed, and will be fully engaged in the process, as I know that it has many ideas to contribute. We have also been listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have set up their own initiatives and local groups. We want to support them in that.

Finally, I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people's concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing for our forests and our woodlands.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s full and frank apology to the House and to the nation for getting this so very wrong. I am sure that the past 48 hours have not been easy for her.

Last night the Government announced that they would withdraw the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is now in the other place, and scrap the consultation on the sell-off of England's forests. Again, MPs heard about a major Government U-turn on the television, rather than hearing it here first. [Hon. Members: “No!”] It came through on BBC News and Sky at 10.20. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when she was informed of the decision that she is now announcing, as her statement is mysteriously absent from the Order Paper today? Only yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the consultation on the forests, set to run until April, would continue. When was the decision made, and who made it?

Today the air is filled with the sound of chickens coming home to roost. The Secretary of State has discovered that her first priority—delivering the 30% cut that she inflicted on her Department—has a hefty political price attached. Half a million people have marched, mountain-biked and petitioned against her sale of the century. They objected to the once-in-a-lifetime offer to buy something that they already collectively own. Under the cloak of reducing the deficit, she came up with a policy that her own Department admitted would cost more than it delivered in benefits, and which would have fragmented the environmental stewardship of England's forests. I congratulate all hon. Members who defied their party Whips a couple of weeks ago to vote against the sell-off, and I remind those who did not that the public may well extract a hefty price from them at the next election.

Today is not a victory for politics as usual: it is a victory for Liz Searle of the Friends of Chopwell Wood, whom I met in Gateshead two weeks ago, for the Save Cannock Chase campaigners, and for the Friends of Dalby Forest, members of which I met in York last weekend. It is a victory for the Save Our Woods campaign, for Alan Robertson from the Hands Off Our Forest campaign in the Forest of Dean, and for thousands of others. I hope that Government Members are listening to those names and will contact those campaigners. They signed the Save Our Forests petition and the Save England's Forests petition, and supported the silent majority in speaking up and telling the Government, “This land is our land”.

Last Friday the Secretary of State announced that her sale of 15% of England's forest permitted under the law as it stands would be put on hold until the consultation ended. The consultation ended last night—we assume by prime ministerial decree. Will the sale of those 40,000 hectares, or 100,000 acres—10 times more than the Labour Government sold during their entire 13 years, and we then reinvested the money—now go ahead, or will that sale await the outcome of the panel’s deliberations? How many consultation responses has she received, and will the panel consider those responses?

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally spoken to the environmental charities and listened to them on the matter. How will the freshly dreamed-up independent panel on the forests be selected? Why are representatives of the forestry industry—the lone voice in favour of her proposals—included in the panel, and why will it meet in secret? Should it not tour the country listening to what people want from their forests and showing a little humility on the subject? Can she reassure the public that foresters themselves, the custodians of forests, will be represented on the panel? How will the campaigners and the members of the public who have spoken up on the issue be represented? What is the status of DEFRA’s forestry regulation—or should I say deregulation—taskforce, which was quietly announced by her colleague in January? Surely we should not have two separate advisory panels, running in tandem, on the future of the forests? Can she tell the House how the Forestry Commission can possibly deliver better access and more biodiversity when it is set to lose a quarter of its staff in the next three months?

This U-turn highlights a wider problem about how this Government work. We have the Prime Minister, a self-styled non-executive chairman, now setting up a unit to monitor Ministers, but he is barking up the wrong tree. It is not individual Departments he should be putting into special measures, but the whole Government, who are out of touch with what people care about, whether that is the opportunity to walk in the forests or to ensure that babies get milk and books, or that our children have the chance to go to university.

I congratulate the Environment Secretary on one thing: she is probably the only Cabinet Minister in living memory to unite the Socialist Workers party and the National Trust in opposition to her plans. Will she learn the lessons of this debacle? She cannot ride roughshod over the people on a policy for which she has no mandate. By offering her 30% cut across DEFRA she has set herself on a collision course with anybody who loves the countryside—and if she will not stand up for the countryside, we on the Labour Benches most certainly will.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure you, Mr Speaker, and the House are aware, I volunteered to make an oral statement, and an oral statement does not appear on the Order Paper.

I made the decision with the Prime Minister. We have spoken about the matter, as the hon. Lady would expect, on a number of occasions. We spoke face to face about the options open to us, and we made the decision together.

The hon. Lady talks about the savings that I have had to make in my Department without a trace of acknowledgement that the reason Government Departments are having to make savings is the mess that her Government left this country in. I do not accept her argument that the proposals outlined in the consultation would have impacted adversely on the stewardship of our woodlands and forests. Since we are on the subject of stewardship, I remind her that, notwithstanding the savings that we have had to make in our Department, we have protected the expenditure on stewardship, precisely because we know that it is so important.

The many friends of forests that the hon. Lady listed will in many cases have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their concern about their understanding of the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill. In their minds, those clauses gave rise to a concern that their particular dearly loved forest might in some way be under threat. It is clear from my statement that, with the withdrawal of the forestry clauses, there can be no question about the protection of their forests in future.

The hon. Lady asked me about the planned sales. They have been suspended, and we await the outcome from the panel. She asked how many responses we had received. The Forestry Commission has received approximately 7,000 direct responses and 2,500 e-mails, and it has sent out 400 hard copies of the consultation document.

With regard to the composition of the panel, it will represent the broad range of views of all those who share with all of us a love and cherishing of the forests, and want to see them protected. It will be broad. Let me help the hon. Lady with her understanding of the deregulation taskforce, which fulfils a completely different function from that of the panel. We have invited Mr Richard Macdonald to advise Ministers on the simplification of regulation, particularly the regulation of agriculture. The consultation is complete: we have received the responses and we await Mr Macdonald’s report. As I said, this is a completely different function from that of the panel that I have announced today.

I found it quite hard to take the hon. Lady’s comments about the support that the previous Labour Government had given to the countryside—and the reaction of Members to those comments was enough to reinforce that point. Finally, as regards humility—perhaps, ultimately, that is the difference between her and me. I am prepared to come here and show genuine humility. If we heard some acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that her Government sold off forests with inadequate protection, we might begin to take what she had to say more seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

First, we need to make it absolutely clear that this is a genuine consultation, unlike a lot of the consultations that I experienced under the previous Government. We want as many people to take part as possible. There is a statutory three-month period; Ministers will reflect on relevant considerations and bring to the House our considered view in a timely fashion.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Public access is absolutely vital to local communities. The Secretary of State talks about her consultation period, but before that period is over, the Government will start selling off 10,000 hectares of public forest land. That is more than was sold in Labour’s entire period in office. I should like to know what right communities will have to bid for that land. How long will they have to raise the money? Will it be sold as leasehold, and is it correct that the selection for this year deliberately avoids woodlands that give public benefits because the Government want to maximise the capital raised from assets?

[Mrs Spelman]

The criteria for the planned sales are set out in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They are a continuation of a programme of sales that have taken place over the past three decades. As the hon. Lady knows, her party’s Government sold off 25,000 acres—[Interruption]—without the protection that this Government will provide.

[Mary Creagh]

Hon. Members cry “Shame,” but we sold that off to reinvest the money in the forest; this money is to be reinvested in flood defence schemes. The land will be sold with no higher rights of public access. Government Members should think very carefully about what is happening. Is it not the case that, on the public forest, the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing, does not know why she is doing it, and nobody wants her to do it? Is it not time to stop and think again?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady was not listening clearly last night. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances in this House that access and other public benefits will be protected. However, many of the pieces of land that fit the criteria the Forestry Commission has set out do not have access attached to them at present. She should reflect carefully on our public consultation document and gain a better understanding of what happened when Rigg wood was sold off under the conditions set by her party’s Government in their contract: without protection, access is now denied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), gave precisely that undertaking in the debate last night, and I believe that he has reiterated it today.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Campaign for Better Transport today launched a “Save Our Buses” campaign. Its research shows that Cambridgeshire county council is proposing to phase out all council bus services, and that Northamptonshire county council plans to cancel all existing rural services. Can the Minister tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Transport, or what advice has been sought, about the impact of those bus cuts on rural communities and economies?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

In 2009 the UK imported indigenous food—food that could be grown in season in the UK—with a total value of approximately £15 billion. Total imports of food, feed and drink in the same period were valued at £32.5 billion.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady’s colleague the Minister of State, who has responsibility for forestry, wrote to all MPs in October saying that he would consult the public on the sale of England’s forests before the end of the year. We now hear that he has postponed that consultation until the new year—yet in a parliamentary answer to me he revealed that he is busy meeting forestry companies on this very issue. When will the public get their say on the future of England’s forests?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Spelman and Mary Creagh

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We need to be pithier from now on. That should be pretty clear.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for welcoming me to my new role and for the briefing that she gave me on Nagoya? I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the new fund that the Government have pledged in order to deliver international biodiversity benefits through international forestry.

On Government plans to maintain biodiversity at home, however, we have seen a series of deeply worrying moves from the right hon. Lady over the past three months. The Government plan to sell off or simply give away 140 national nature reserves; our national parks, which a Labour Government began in 1949, will suffer a catastrophic 30% cut to their budgets, leaving park workers unemployed, our national trails abandoned and precious habitats neglected; and her Department has announced a review of England’s forests, seeing them sold to the highest bidder—asset stripping our natural heritage. Is it not the case that she preaches environmental evangelism around the world and practices environmental vandalism at home?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a disappointing opener from the hon. Lady. She appears not to understand that her own party when in government would have had to make cuts, and there will be no credibility to her accusations unless she tells the House where she would have made savings. In any event, however, there is no suggestion that we are poised to sell off nature reserves. Can she not see that it is not necessarily for the state to do everything? The Wildlife Trusts welcome the opportunity to be more involved in the management of our nature reserves.

[Mary Creagh]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I suggest that she ask them. As for selling off the forests, she just heard my explanation that it is wrong to confuse ownership with the quality of environmental protection, and I believe that the communities and charities that would like to be more involved in protecting and enhancing our forest biodiversity welcome our suggestions.

[Mary Creagh]

The truth is that the Government have reserved their most vicious spending cut for a 30% cut in environmental spending. We know that in the spending review, the right hon. Lady caved in early to the Chancellor’s pressure, and that she gave away too much too quickly. Why did she sell out the country’s environment to the Chancellor?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady has to answer the question about where she would have made the cuts.

[Mary Creagh]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but her Government were committed to a 50% reduction in capital. Perhaps she would like to identify in the Department’s budget what she would have done. What I can tell the House is that, going into those negotiations with the Treasury, we took a strategic approach, because it was important for us to protect as much of the capital as possible. Her party, had it been in government, would have cut the capital budget by 50%, but we succeeded in reducing that to a 34% reduction, meaning that the bulk of our flood defence capital has been protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the EU budget needs to reflect the straitened economic circumstances that all European member states are experiencing. Last weekend, the Prime Minister met the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel, and earlier this week he met President Sarkozy from France, to have important discussions about the realities of the size of the EU budget. Part of those considerations will be the allocation that goes to the common agricultural policy.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We all know that a successful outcome to the common agricultural policy negotiations is vital for Britain’s rural communities. In an interview on “Farming Today”, the right hon. Lady said that the Treasury had conducted a regional impact assessment of the CSR, and that her Department had considered its rural impact. I asked her Department for a copy of that rural impact assessment, and the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), stated:

“DEFRA has not carried out a formal assessment of the impact of the spending review on rural matters.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 606W.]

Once and for all, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the rural impact assessment exists?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is not just the decisions made at DEFRA that have implications for rural communities. As the Government’s rural champion, DEFRA is therefore undertaking an assessment of the implications of other Departments’ elements of the spending review across rural areas. For example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has made some positive decisions arising from the spending review, including the roll-out of superfast broadband in rural areas, that will have a positive effect on rural areas. The matter needs to be regarded in the round, and that work has been undertaken since the announcement of the decisions affecting all Departments was made on 20 October.