Winter Floods 2013-14

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 8th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

I will not say that it is delightful to come back to the subject of flooding, because I feel that I have spoken about it at rather frequent intervals over the past year, but it is extremely good to be having a reasoned and, I hope, informed debate. I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for introducing it and for the work that her Committee did on the report.

I welcome the report, which was done when we were under the greatest pressure in Somerset, but it might be instructive for a future Committee to look back on the consequences in areas such as Somerset—what was done later, what worked and did not work—to look, with the benefit of perhaps a year’s experience or so, at whether what was done was effective in reducing flooding, and to take evidence from local people. I know that there was not the opportunity to do that at the time.

In the main Chamber earlier, in business questions, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), said that the Government were unaware for a long time of what was happening in Somerset. I have to say that that was absolutely, categorically not the case. Looking back at the record, I first raised the issue in the House on 6 January, which I think was the first sitting day of last year. Furthermore, the issues on the Somerset levels have been known for many years. Again, without claiming any clairvoyance on my part, but simply because I speak for my constituents, I have repeatedly drawn attention to the need to do more to protect the levels, including in a clear statement in 2009 on what dredging was needed.

It is reasonable to say that nothing would have removed completely the hazard last winter, when we had unprecedented levels of rainfall, but things could have been done that would have mitigated the effects, got the water away more quickly and reduced the impact on local communities. There were three basic reasons why those things were not done.

The first is the basic neglect of an artificial landscape. To me it is obvious that we need to maintain the structures that drain the Somerset levels if we want to retain the current form of its unique landscape, but that was not obvious to those who thought it was somehow possible to reduce maintenance while still preserving that unique environment.

The second reason is the malign effects of cost-benefit analysis and Treasury rules. We understand why they are in place, but they do not help when a small, dispersed population faces a massive problem. They are designed to protect cities and urban areas, and do not protect rural areas. I am glad that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton drew attention to the need to look at the importance of not only agricultural land but rural communities in flood protection zones.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of maintaining the landscape. Does he agree that certain changes in land management practice have been a real contributory factor to the problems in Somerset? In particular, there is the pursuit of maize as a crop, which leaves soil bare over winter, allowing it to flow into rivers and be washed away, and the increased subsidy for removing vegetation from the uplands. Changes to the landscape as a result of that changed land management practice have had a really important impact.

[Mr Heath]

It is undoubtedly true that changes in land management have an effect. Land compaction and the growing of different crops on more upland areas affect the rate of flow into what is effectively a large sponge. I have lived in Somerset all my life, and the landscape is still pretty recognisable as what it was when I was a boy. We could not really say that there has been a revolution in agronomy in the area; it is still principally a livestock area, and crops are grown there as forage rather than as commercial crops. Although the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will come back to later, it is possible to overstate land management as part of the cause and effect.

The third reason for the lack of action I mentioned was in my view an environmental heresy, namely the decision, for some reason, that the watercourses in Somerset were the centre of ecological interest, rather than the land in between them. That is, I am afraid, nonsense. The watercourses are artificial drainage channels. It was ridiculous to “save” the flora and fauna of the drainage channels but lose the irreplaceable flora and fauna living on the land in between them; that has been the effect.

I will deal quickly with what has happened since. The Government have done an awful lot of the things we asked them to, and I am grateful to Ministers for that. We were lucky: we had the attention of the national and, indeed, the world media for a short period of time. If the Thames valley had flooded before the Somerset levels, we might not have attracted the same attention. We secured visits from very senior members of the Government: the Prime Minister made a number of visits, as did the Deputy Prime Minister and more than one Secretary of State, as well as the Minister with responsibility for floods. We were very grateful that they came to see for themselves what needed to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with the idea that, somehow, the flooding in Somerset was all the result of the current Government’s misguided decisions, I remind him that the rivers in Somerset, the Parrett and the Tone, have not been dredged not for four years but for 25 years. We drew attention to that throughout the period of the Labour Government. In 2009 I told the House:

“I am convinced that if we had proper dredging of some of our rivers and proper clearing of debris and strengthening of banks on some of the smaller tributary streams, it would make a substantial difference to the way in which we deal with these matters.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 553.]

It was not done by his Government, so let us stop the nonsense of pretending that the 2013 floods were the result of this Government’s actions. They were the result of long-term neglect.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting so exercised. He was the responsible Minister in the Department at the time, and I understand that he wishes to protect his record but, equally, he must accept—I am sure he knows this—that after the 2007 floods the previous Government made huge efforts both to ramp up the funding—[Interruption.] He does not disagree with that.

[Mr Heath]

I am telling the hon. Gentleman that not a penny was spent on dredging in Somerset, which is where the floods were. Does he remember?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory, because the floods were not only in Somerset. In fact, more houses were flooded on the Thames estuary than in Somerset, so he must be selective in his memory. My point is that, after 2007, the previous Government undertook a huge programme and established the Pitt review. Both the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Conservative party said they would continue to implement the review, but neither did so when they got into government. He cannot say other than that because it is the truth, as he knows. I would be happy to give way to him once again if he wants to deny it on the record, but it is the truth, and I am afraid he really has to accept that.

Flooding not only destroys property, it makes homes unliveable for months and sometimes years. Flooding ruins businesses and destroys crops and livestock. We learned from the 2007 floods that those affected by flooding display between a twofold and a fivefold increase in stress and depression. The effect of flooding on people’s lives is enormous and long lasting, which is why prevention is so important, but the Government chose to cancel new flood defences, slash maintenance and sack front-line flooding staff.

The Government like to talk about competence, but we all remember the chaotic infighting between the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when so much of the country was under water. We all remember the failure to recognise the emergency until it hit the south-east. The Chair of the Select Committee alluded to the argument over the size of the pump and the capital expenditure and revenue dispute, which delayed action at the time. I agree with her call to consider this in terms of total expenditure, and I hope that change will eventually come. Her Committee makes an important point on that in its report.

We all remember the Prime Minister’s cruelly disingenuous promise that money is no object, and it is difficult to decide whether the original statement or the retraction of it in November marked a lower point. Will the Minister confirm how much of the flood support package for home owners and businesses has been received by those affected? Thankfully, many people were protected because, as the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out, the previous Government implemented 46 of the Pitt review’s key findings to increase our resilience to flood emergencies. We established the flood forecasting centre in 2008 as a joint venture between the Environment Agency and the Met Office. As the December 2013 tidal surge hit, the Environment Agency issued 160,000 flood warnings, and an estimated 18,000 people were evacuated from homes in coastal areas. At one stage during the surge, 64 areas had the highest warning level in place, reflecting a danger to life.

What lessons were learned? What has changed since the floods of last year? Many thousands of people were forced to leave their homes last winter. Transport was disrupted for weeks, in some cases months. Businesses were wrecked, and many closed and never reopened. After the flood, the Government promised that they had reviewed their approach to flooding and that the autumn statement would contain a proper long-term flood risk strategy. Well, the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change reviewed that investment programme and found that nothing has changed. Three quarters of flood defences in England have not been maintained according to their identified needs in 2014-15. The Government’s investment plans will see the number of properties at significant risk rise by 80,000 every five years.

The budget for the ongoing maintenance of flood defences was cut by 20% in the 2010 spending review and has not been restored. The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has increased the risk of high-consequence flood defences, such as sea walls, failing. The failure of such defences would put lives as well as livelihoods at risk. I need to impress on the Minister that that is not simply my view but that of the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change, and he really needs to take notice of it.

The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has led to a huge increase in flood risk. The Government have put the headline first. Of the

“over 1,400 schemes going ahead across the country”

announced by the Chancellor, only 310 are fully funded, and only 97 of those 310 are new. Some 1,119 of the 1,400 schemes may never receive full funding, because they are eligible for only 20% grant in aid funding—the rest has to be made up by partnership funding. The black hole in the Government’s funding announcements could be as large as £830 million.

The Government say their plans will reduce flood risk by 5%—true, but disingenuous, and the Minister knows that very well. The Government have put a cheap headline ahead of reducing risk for the most vulnerable. Instead of focusing on reducing risk for high and medium-risk households, they have focused on moving households at low risk into the lowest risk category. That is completely irresponsible. Limited capital investment should be protecting homes at high risk, which is a one in 30 risk, or at medium risk, which is a one in 75 to a one in 100 risk, rather than being used to provide additional protection to those at low risk, which is a risk of one in 1,000 or more. That is how the Minister gets his 5%, but it is meaningless—it is wrong.

This decision will put more homes, lives and livelihoods at significant risk. In a sign of just how far the Government are willing to go to get their headline, they chose to exclude consideration of risk to life from their analysis. If the Minister wants to deny that, let him challenge me now, but the evidence is there in the impact assessment: the Government have left out of it any assessment of risk to life. How could a Minister ask their civil servants to prepare such an assessment for them?

Does the Minister agree with the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office that the number of properties at risk of flooding is increasing? If not, will he give us his figure for the predicted net change in the number of properties at high and medium risk over the next five to 10 years? Will he confirm that although his 5% net reduction figure is true, it is also true that the number of properties at high and medium risk has increased? Will he have the good grace at least to blush when he acknowledges that?

Will the Minister confirm that the long-term investment strategy assumes, against the evidence, that development on the floodplain will stop after 2014-15? The Committee on Climate Change says that 20,000 new properties are built on the floodplain each year, including 4,000 a year in areas of significant flood risk. Does the Minister disagree?

The Government’s strategy says:

“We have tested our findings against a range of possible climate change projections using the latest scenarios.”

However, if we read further, we find that the strategy assumes minimal climate change. The assumptions section on page 18—I challenge the Minister to read it—states:

“The main assumptions in this ‘baseline’ result are that the climate will change in line with the medium rate of change in UKCP09”—

UK Climate Projections 2009—

“and that no allowance is made for development in the flood plain.”

National Pollinator Strategy

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

My mother was certainly very frugal, but she did need her car washing every week, and it was, every week, covered in dead insects. Sadly, the cars are no longer covered in thousands of dead insects. We have cleaner cars today, but the insects are gone.

[Mr Heath]

I just wanted to respond to Mr Speaker’s interjection by saying that when I was a boy, half a crown would buy an entire gallon of Somerset cider.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is indicating only how much older he is than I am, and also perhaps that he had more of a penchant for things that my mother certainly would not have allowed me. I was not in any way allowed half a gallon of Somerset cider; half a pint of carrot juice was more like it.

As the insects have disappeared, so have the birds. As the insects continue to disappear, so will the yield from our crops.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

A simple answer—I appreciate that it might be considered a simplistic one—is that we target the funding better towards the places where it will have the most effect. We have a highly efficient and effective agriculture industry and we do not need to target funding at all sectors. We need to ensure that it reaches the places where it will have the greatest effect. As I have said, this is where we part company with the National Farmers Union, which would like us to maintain the maximum funding within pillar one. We believe, however, that pillar two is the most effective vehicle for benefiting environmental interests, which are important, and for directing support to the areas of this country’s agriculture that need it most.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right to place the emphasis on pillar two. The figure for voluntary modulation to which he referred was 15%, but can he confirm that the figure for voluntary modulation has previously been as high as 19%? Can he also expand on what the 15% figure is going to mean for farmers, and on the implications for the Treasury in this regard?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman as full an answer as he would wish. First, we have not yet agreed the deal, so we do not know whether that voluntary modulation figure will stand. Secondly, a lot will depend on the design of the schemes and on how we implement them at national level. We have been pushing the argument in Europe that, in relation to the devolved Administrations, we want as much flexibility and local determination as possible in the design of operation. We want to give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the opportunity to use their own discretion on behalf of their own farming businesses, as they will know the best way of implementing the schemes in those countries. If we are successful in our objective of achieving that flexibility, as we have been so far, we will effectively have a devolved CAP.

Horsemeat

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The FSA is examining the paperwork from those companies at the moment. I understand that some of it is a little difficult to interpret. I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance, because some of the meat present appears to have been unlabelled and therefore its destination is unknown. The FSA and the police are certainly taking every action they can, but at the moment they are examining the paperwork.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my astonishment that Tim Smith, who was chief executive of the FSA until only last year and who is now the technical director in charge of food standards at Tesco, is not only still in his job, but still on the FSA board? Some would say that is not just switching horses, but trying to ride both at the same time.

[Mr Heath]

I have to say that I am impressed by the degree of co-operation we are now seeing from the industry and all food businesses in the testing regime we have put in place, from which we hope to have meaningful results tomorrow. Who works for which company is not a matter for the Government or Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but whether we get results that reassure the public is a matter for us.

Horsemeat

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

In the few moments I have to respond, I should say that this has been a broadly measured and constructive debate, as is entirely appropriate on such a serious issue. It has occasionally been slightly marred by Opposition Front Benchers who wished to introduce a party political element and seemed blithely oblivious to the fact that the systems in place are now precisely the same as those under the previous Government.

My view is that this is a shared problem and shared response. The problem is shared between the Government, the House, the food companies and the regulators. It is now shared among countries across Europe that are either implicated or the victims of what may or may not be criminal behaviour. It is shared by the police and investigating authorities, which are now looking into what would appear to be—I make that qualification—significant and widespread criminality. I hope that we also share the conviction that there is only one group whose interests are paramount: the consumer, who has been cheated in having taken off the shelf something that was not what was described on the label.

Despite the occasional rhetorical swoops, there was sufficient common cause across the House. I have looked carefully at the Opposition motion, most of which is a recital of fact and therefore unexceptional. However, one part of it is wrong and suggests the Opposition’s current frame of mind. They call on the

“Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved”.

It is not for the Government in this country to instruct the police on what they should investigate. It is certainly not for the Government in this country to place requirements on police authorities in other member states as to what they should investigate. On that basis, I invite my colleagues not to support the motion, but I will nevertheless acknowledge the extent to which we agree.

Let me deal with some of the individual contributions. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who I understand has had to go to a—

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

No, because the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) took up all my time.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a very important issue that was mentioned by many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish): the importance of the traceability of meat in this country and the systems we have in place. It is incredibly important to emphasise that so far not the slightest suspicion has been raised that cut meat produced in this country is anything other than of very high quality indeed, and we should take some comfort from that.

The hon. Lady also mentioned trace contamination. We need to look at whether DNA contamination of less than 1% is anything other than environmental contamination that is below a certain threshold. We are taking advice on that, because it is very important that we do not suggest that something is adulterated when, for instance, it has merely been sitting on a butcher’s shelf next to the meat of another species. We have to be careful about that.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) raised some important points. I will look very carefully at what he said to see whether there is substance there that we need to pursue. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about fraud on a European scale and the importance of the police investigation. I absolutely agree.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked about the importance of the consumer, which I mentioned right at the beginning. She then drew some questionable conclusions in terms of public health, but I know that she did so because she wants for her constituents the same assurance that I want for mine. I want my constituents and her constituents to be absolutely assured that food on our supermarket shelves is safe to eat. Safety is the first priority, and then we need composition tests to make sure that it is what it says it is. The tests that we have carried out so far have not given any cause for concern on safety grounds, and she needs to take that back to her constituency.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) took a global view of food prices and raised very important points. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave a graphic description of some of the processes that are used in the processed meat industry. May I distinguish between what she said and what the hon. Member for Glasgow South said later about mince? Having a higher fat content in mince—British mince has always had it—does not mean that we should describe it as something else. I am sorry, but I do not think it is helpful to the consumer to say, “This is no longer mince—it is mince with fat and collagen added,” or something of that kind. That is the point of the consultation on composition that we are carrying out.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke with great knowledge about horse passports and the national equine database. She said, as I have said repeatedly, that the national equine database did nothing whatsoever in terms of traceability. If we want to improve the passport system—I think there is a strong case for doing so—we need to look at it not on that basis but on the basis of how passports are issued and their content.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South talked about an issue of timing to do with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and said that the Food Standards Agency had failed to react. He suggested that the Food Standards Authority of Ireland acted on the basis of intelligence. Let me tell him that it explicitly rejects the suggestion that it was working on the basis of an intelligence-based system, and therefore it was not operating on the basis of suspicion that there was adulteration of material going into the UK. As soon as it had confirmed results, it shared them with the FSA and the FSA shared them with the Government, and we have then had the process that is continuing. We like to work on the basis of evidence before bringing prosecutions, and we like to give the evidence to the police. [Interruption.] I am answering the question; indeed, that is the answer. They did not suspect that adulterated meat was going into the UK; they did a routine test and notified us when they had adverse results.

This House needs to send a message to food businesses that their credibility and reputation are on the line. They need to take the actions that we have agreed with them and, on the issue of convoluted and labyrinthine food supply networks, they ought to consider whether provenance is not a more important issue than profits. I think that they may need to learn that lesson.

The message to regulators is that we need to ensure that systems in place across Europe work effectively. We need to look at our own systems to see whether they can work better, including the horse passport system, and we need to consider whether the intelligence-based approach needs to be supplemented by regular audit.

The message to consumers is that they have a right to be sold what it says on the label and a right to products on the supermarket shelf that are, whatever the selling price, safe, wholesome and genuine. The regulatory authorities, the Government and everybody else involved with this—principally the retailers—have to provide the evidence for that and reassure our consumers.

Question put.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Where are the Health Ministers?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the difference between a policy responsibility and implementation. It is precisely because of that difference that we split it—to make sure that implementation was with the body charged with that duty.

I believe that the Food Standards Agency carries out its duties in a responsible and professional way. It takes a risk-based approach to testing, based on intelligence. It is right to do so, because that is how it gets the most effective results.

The hon. Lady asked about trading standards officers. Of course these officers have a duty to their local authorities and to the people in their area in relation to the standards that traders employ in that area, but they are not a responsibility of central Government. Local government will take the decisions on what are the appropriate levels.

The hon. Lady seems to think that there is some difficulty with horse passports. I simply do not think that that is the case. I would happily set out the difference between the route for horses going to slaughter and the routes for others.

May I make one final point that is absolutely essential? It is important that neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this House talks down the British food industry at a time when the standards in that industry are very high. That something has been discovered in Ireland that is serious and may lead to criminal proceedings does not undermine the serious efforts that are taken by retailers, processors and producers in this country to ensure traceability and the standard of the food that is available to consumers. She should not put that at risk by making unguarded comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

We certainly need to do that—that is one of the things that is in train. I have said that the FSA operates on the basis of intelligence—it will continue to do so, because it is important that we find where adulteration takes place. However, it is important to say that manufacturers and retailers have a responsibility to establish very clearly the provenance of the food they supply. Most retailers and processers in this country do an extremely good job of exactly that, but when the system falls down, we must investigate and take appropriate action.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

People trust brands such as Tesco to have precisely sourced their supply. The Minister rightly said that it is not illegal to sell horsemeat in this country, but he also rightly said that it is illegal to sell horsemeat if it is not properly labelled as such. What steps have been taken to prosecute Tesco and others for their failure to label properly the food they were supplying to their customers?

[Mr Bradshaw]

Answer the question this time.

Ash Dieback Disease

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The honest answer to the hon. Lady is that, surprisingly, very little work has been done on this. As she may imagine, we have reviewed all the scientific work that has been done across Europe, not only on pathogen identification but on silviculture, to see how to mitigate the effects of the disease. We have all been struck by how little work has been done and the great need for us better to understand the disease, how it develops, and how to develop proper resistance to it. She raises a perfectly proper point to which the answer, our scientists having reviewed all the literature and talked to their European counterparts, is that we are not as far advanced in our understanding as we perhaps ought to be given how long the disease has been endemic across the continent.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister is being extremely generous and courteous in giving way so often; I am grateful. He said that the first time the disease was positively identified was in April this year in stocks in a nursery. Can he therefore explain to the House, because this question is being widely asked, why it was not considered appropriate at that point to introduce a ban on imported ash seedlings? Many people look at this and say, “It was found in a nursery and we knew that these were imported seedlings, so why was the ban not put in place at that point?”

[Mr Heath]

The answer is that we do not import at that time of year and therefore no imports were coming in. The most important thing to do was to carry out a very detailed search as to where imports had taken place, going on from there to identify where sales and possible plantings had taken place so that we could identify any infected seedlings and have them destroyed. That was the thrust of what we were doing. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we also then went to consultation on the import ban, but we needed to know exactly the extent of what was happening, and the time scale meant that there were no plantings going on at that time of year.

This calendar is very important to hon. Members’ understanding of exactly what has happened. For instance, a lot of people have the mistaken impression that we are now finding that the disease is suddenly spreading. It is not; it does not spread at this time of year because we are out of the sporulation season. We are identifying possible symptoms of disease, most of which have been there for a very long time—two years, three years, or perhaps more—in the trees in the wider environment that we had discovered to be infected. It is very important that people understand what is happening now.

Let me return to my point. When Chalara was discovered, additional resources were deployed to trace ash trees known to have been supplied from infected nurseries, and over the summer 100,000 young ash trees were traced and destroyed. In parallel, the authorities developed the pest risk analysis that was required to support the precautionary action taken and to justify continued intervention—that is part of my answer to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Such analysis was the basis for a fast-track consultation to strengthen evidence and seek views on an import and movement ban on ash trees. As I said, that took place outside the main planting season, but the industry took the sensible precaution of instituting a voluntary moratorium on imports of ash-planting material.

We can be reasonably sure—not absolutely sure—that no ash seedlings were imported during the summer, other than through very casual means such as if someone brought one back in their car boot. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) asked me in an urgent question whether I could guarantee that no one had brought back an ash seedling in their car, but I am afraid I have not looked in every boot of every car, so I cannot give that guarantee. I can, however, give a reasonable assurance that commercial imports of ash seedlings did not take place during the summer.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister says that a ban on imports was not considered necessary because it was not believed that there would be imports at that time of year. Does he therefore accept that the horticultural trade and industry would have suffered no commercial detriment by the imposition of such a ban, and that prudence and risk analysis might have led him to do so?

[Mr Heath]

Again, I return to the fact that to impose a statutory ban, we must have evidence to suggest it is necessary. That is why we developed such evidence, which was put out in the consultation. The most important point is that plant importers recognised the potential damage the disease could do, and imposed a moratorium that stopped trees coming into this country over the summer. A statutory ban was not needed for that, but we ensured nevertheless that it was introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

None of that activity was compromised by cuts to the Forestry Commission budgets, as the hon. Member for Wakefield suggested. Although its overall budget has taken cuts since 2010, funding for plant health has not been reduced. Indeed, a bigger share of the Forestry Commission’s budget is now dedicated to plant health than previously, and spending by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in that important area has increased. The hon. Lady knows that to be the case because she asked questions and got answers, even if she is not prepared to accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I can confirm what the hon. Lady asks—the DCLG and the LGA specifically attended Cobra meetings, so they are fully in the loop. We have given advice to the LGA for dissemination to local authorities, which understand their responsibilities. The Highways Agency is also involved—a point about transport links was made earlier. We are conscious of the fact that some new plantings are inevitably associated with major road systems—and, indeed, the railways—and we are taking great care to ensure that those trees are inspected and appropriate action taken.

Most of the cases confirmed in the wider environment are clustered in the east and south-east of England—in Norfolk, Suffolk and Kent. A few cases have been found further west or extending north up the east coast. The disease is present in mature trees in those areas. That pattern suggests two things. Chalara fraxinea first came to Britain through spores blown on the wind from continental Europe, and the advice from the specialists who know about these things is that it has been here for some time—at least two years, and possibly more.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again so generously. The scientific advice that we have received says:

“Local spread may be via wind, rain splash or even transmission by insects. Over longer distances the risk of disease spread is most likely to be through the movement of diseased ash plants.”

That does not accord with the idea that the disease first had its impact on these shores after being blown across the North sea or the channel by wind; it suggests that it would have come here in saplings with the contagion then spread on the wind locally.

[Mr Heath]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

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

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

I think I will make a little more progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

Well, all right. One more time.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to the Minister. He has said that, according to the scientists, the incidence of the disease is consistent with its having been carried in by the wind. Of course I take his word for that, but he has used the same phrase repeatedly, which has led me to worry. Are the scientists saying that the incidence of the disease is consistent with its having been carried in by the wind, or are they saying that the wind is the most likely vector for its transmission? What do they believe is the most likely vector?

[Mr Heath]

When we have completed all the epidemiological modelling, we shall be in a better position to answer that question. At present, it is perfectly proper to recognise that the likelihood—

Business of the House

Debate between David Heath and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate about the timing of reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility? If the OBR is to be regarded as genuinely independent of the coalition collaborators, then not only the content but the timing of reports must be absolutely free from interference.

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that a debate would be worth while, because the OBR is independent of Government.