Environment Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The four-minute limit is now imposed again for all further Back-Bench contributions.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]]

I will speak to my amendment 4. The precautionary principle is a whole new way for the Government to legislate on environmental matters which can be applied to a huge range of environmental principles. It could be used in the extreme—for example, to introduce policies such as stopping people from driving motor cars on the basis that they damage the environment. In an increasingly legislative field, my amendment is so important in ensuring that the Government can clearly define the purposes for use of the precautionary principle, beyond those in the mere principles statements outlined in clauses 16 to 18.

The Minister said in a letter to me this morning: “I can confirm that Ministers of the Crown are only required to have due regard to the policy statement when making policy by virtue of clause 18(1). The environmental principles duty is not designed to apply to individual decisions or other public bodies.” In other words, the statement of principles is pretty nearly toothless.

My amendment would clearly constrain when and where the precautionary principle can be used. I ask the Minister, when she sums up, to go further than just going into the principles; I ask her to include some of my amendment in the Bill. A particularly important part is subsection (3C), which says:

“The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are…more than hypothetical in nature; and…serious and irreversible.”

I cannot see any reason at all why that should not be in the Bill. If the Minister is not inclined to include it, I hope that their lordships will pick it up when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.

The precautionary principle is not consistently applied to different activity; it is frequently used to constrain certain activities where any impacts are deemed to be unacceptable. For example, Natural England is currently seeking to restrict game shooting around European protected sites. Due to evidence of damage in only five—a mere 1.5% of all sites—it wants to introduce a licensing system.

In summing up, can the Minister please bear in mind all the constraints that are in my amendments? Otherwise, this principle could well become oppressive to people’s freedom in the future, and we may well rue the day that we put the provision in the Bill. I am looking to the Minister to tell me why some or all of my constraints cannot be included in the Bill, because that is where they should be. The statement of principles, as written in the Bill, is pretty nearly toothless, and the precautionary principle gives the Minister, or any future Minister, a huge overwhelming power, which we may well live to regret.

Agriculture Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.

The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.

It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.

On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not just at the moment, but I will later.

I am afraid to say that, despite the considerable thought that has gone into the amendments, we have not yet found a magic form of words that will address all the concerns and avoid undesirable side effects. In asking the House to reject the amendments, I will set out the set of solutions, both legislative and non-legislative, that I hope will allay the fears that Members have expressed. In my view, this range of measures, and constant vigilance on the part of Government and, indeed, consumers, are of more use than warm words in primary legislation.

I will start by reiterating that, alongside my colleagues on this side of the House, I stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times, our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation.

They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 carries across those existing standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety. Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.

It falls to our independent food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. The FSA’s risk analysis process is rigorous, completely independent of Government and based on robust scientific evidence, along with other legitimate factors such as wider consumer interests and the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, those in the Department for International Trade stood on the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I were also proud to stand on. We are absolutely committed to high standards.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

rose—

[Victoria Prentis]

I promised to give way to my hon. Friend, and I forgot.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has helpfully set out the very high standards that any imports will be required to meet coming into this country. Therefore, is there any reason why this House should not be given proper opportunity to scrutinise any free trade agreements before they are signed, so that we can ensure that those agreements do not enable produce to come into this country that is lower than those standards?

[Victoria Prentis]

If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will get on very shortly to a long section of my speech that details how Parliament will be able to scrutinise future trade agreements. It is important, and I think that we do do that, but I will set that out very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.

I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.

The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would

“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.

I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.

Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.

Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.

The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.

Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

After that rant, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), because I think he gave one of the most outstanding speeches I have heard in this House.

I start by drawing attention to my declaration of interest as a farmer. I have lived with this subject for some 67 years of my life—my father was a farmer. I have a passion for the countryside, I have a passion for British farmers producing high-quality goods, and I have a passion for British farmers managing the British countryside in the way that it is, and that is the way the public want to see it continue to be managed. The Bill gives us an ideal opportunity, through the way we are going to purchase public goods, to continue to raise the standards of British agriculture.

I have been in this House for 29 years. I have not seen a single free trade agreement negotiated by the EU that has damaged British farming standards, and I do not believe that will happen in the future. I have listened to every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has correctly said from the Front Bench. What we do not want to do is jeopardise the 29 or so roll-over free trade agreements from the EU by passing legislation in this House tonight that would do such a thing.

While being passionate about maintaining high standards, I do not think that Lords amendments 12 and 16 are the way to do it. The way to do it, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, is through variable tariffs that make clear to our trading partners that if they do not adhere to our high standards, we will raise the tariffs on their goods. That is the way to do it.

The second way to do it is to beef up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government can do that unilaterally without any legislation. They can simply renew the term of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I urge her to have serious talks with the Department for International Trade to see whether that can be done. It does not need to be put in the Bill. We do not need amendments to the Bill. We might need to look at it in the Trade Bill if the Government are not sympathetic to my arguments, but that is a different matter for a different day, and I might well support amendments of that sort if I do not see progress.

There are lots of things I do welcome in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been right to mention them, particularly Government amendment 2, which relates to multi-annual assistance plans for farmers. That is absolutely vital for how we will support our farmers in the 21st century. We want them to be producing more of the food that our British consumers eat. While I have been in this House, I have seen more and more goods imported into this country, whereas if our farmers could start to produce more, all those imports—things such as yoghurt and cheese—could be replaced with goods produced in this country. If we keep up our high standards, we will continue to export more and more to other countries. Recently, we have seen our pork and milk powder go to China and my excellent Cotswold lambs go to France. There is a huge opportunity around the world if we keep our standards up. That is the way we need to go: not dumbing everything down, but keeping standards up.

I am delighted that some of my ideas on food security are in amendments 5 and 6 and will be included in the Bill. That is important and gives our farmers the stimulus to produce more of the high-quality food we want to eat. One thing that the coronavirus lockdown taught us was that the supermarkets, such as Waitrose and even Lidl, that went out of their way to promote British food did best and are now prospering in a way that they had not previously.

The Government should not accept amendments 12 and 16, but they should act through tariffs.

Flood Response

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

The Environment Agency has a fairly long pipeline of flood defence improvements, but it will be important to consider the representations that my hon. Friend made in future decisions on the allocation of that £4 billion fund.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has twice mentioned the planning system. In my view, too many houses are still being built on floodplains, causing problems not only for them but for houses downstream from them. Will she work with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that where the local authority planning decision is overturned on appeal the Planning Inspectorate always encloses a condition that the local authority must approve a satisfactory drainage system?

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend raises very important points. It is vital to ensure that our planning system properly takes into account flood risk, and I will continue to engage with colleagues in MHCLG on how we ensure that takes place.

Agriculture Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

This is the first chance I have had, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to you for being back in your rightful place in this House.

I also pay tribute to the six excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). They are a highly talented group of men and women in whom I think our party will have an asset for many years to come. They are fantastic advocates for their constituencies, and they will all no doubt have long and industrious—illustrious, rather—political careers.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

And industrious.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

And industrious too, no doubt—industrious in particular.

I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a farmer and receive income from farming.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us, this is the first debate that we have had since we left the European Union—and we have well and truly left the common agricultural policy, so we now have the opportunity to design a new domestic agricultural policy that will recognise the unique characteristics and needs of the UK farming industry as opposed to 27 European countries.

The Government, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), originally said that they would negotiate

“a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]

However, more recently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Financial Times of 17 January that farms have had three years to prepare for a new trading relationship. But to prepare for what—a free trade agreement with full benefits or a no-deal situation where beef and sheep exports face 50% to 60% adverse tariffs? The future of agriculture is very uncertain at the moment. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her excellent speech, this landmark legislation could not only boost productivity but give some of the highest environmental protection in the world, setting an example to others.

This is an industry that employs 474,000 people, with a net annual contribution to the UK economy of some £8 billion. Last summer, the National Audit Office produced a report with some frontline statistics, which it is very good at doing, saying that there were 85,000 recipients of CAP payments in England in 2017. It went on to say that of those, 82,500 would participate in the new environmental land management scheme by 2028. That seems a very high and optimistic target, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, and it will be achieved only if the scheme has properly defined objectives, is relatively simple to apply for and operate, and, above all, has an absolute commitment from the Government to pay on time for the work done, in line with their commitment to other small businesses. As I said, this is a highly ambitious target. I remind the Government that only 20,000 farms, as opposed to 82,500, had enrolled in the countryside stewardship scheme after 42 years of operation.

The NAO report goes on to tell us that without direct payment, 42% of farms would have made a loss, assuming that everything else had remained the same. The Government are committed to making payments at the same level this year, thereafter moving to a system of public goods for public money. However, having tabled amendments to the previous Bill, which fell due to the general election, to ensure that food production is at the heart of this legislation, I find it somewhat disappointing to see that public goods do not secure more of our food supply. For farmers, it will be difficult to compete in the same market as those who either have a one-sided subsidy such as the CAP or regulations that discriminate against our farmers. I understand that this year, 95,000 tonnes of rapeseed was imported into this country from Ukraine—a country that is allowed to use neonicotinoids, which are banned in this country. So we are simply exporting environmental risk to other countries by doing this.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly legitimate to defend our producers against anti-competitive distortions being introduced into our market?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is precisely what I am trying to get at—our farmers can compete with any farmers in the world, provided they have a level playing field.

It is not only regulation that could be an obstacle to them. There could be a tariff schedule that broadly supports European farmers and disadvantages British farmers. For example, lamb producers in the Cotswolds, who work in a very important farming sector, could be undercut by New Zealand lamb being brought into this country with zero tariffs, while they face an adverse European tariff that prevents them from continuing their lucrative export to Europe.

The new ELMS and productivity scheme needs to be implemented on time, to see how it works in practice and to play an important role in achieving net zero goals. If it is not introduced on time in 2024, there will be a gap in funding. Many experts believe that introducing it on time will be extremely difficult, and that it is more likely to slip from 2024 to 2028, which will produce a gap in funding. We have an opportunity, post Brexit, to create a progressive, carbon-neutral model of farming in the UK, with the NFU committed to an ambitious target of the sector being carbon-neutral by 2040.

The Bill prepares our farming industry for the future, so that it can meet the needs of this country, and with that comes consideration of the younger generation of farmers. The lump sum payment provisions should be more geared towards encouraging young people into farming. As they stand, the provisions could well lead to some areas of the country simply not being farmed, because there will be land without the ability to get any subsidy whatsoever.

Farming has experienced a huge technological transformation in the past 10 years, with better IT, better animal husbandry, better use of GPS, improved agricultural chemicals and soil sampling, and a host of other technological improvements. Those advances in the agricultural industry will no doubt continue at pace. Younger generations can quickly adapt to new technology, as I am finding with my son, who has just moved to my farm. We must support them, so that they can play a bigger part in British agricultural production, considerably increasing productivity and environmental and animal welfare standards.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

TB in Cattle and Badgers

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Wilson, and also to the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for the reasoned way she introduced the debate. I did not agree with all her conclusions, but her demeanour and the tenor of her remarks were very reasonable.

I have experience of the matter because I grew up as a farmer on my mother’s dairy farm in the foot and mouth regime, where farmers around us had their herds slaughtered. It was a pretty devastating time, growing up. I know only too well the effect that TB can have on the agricultural community and indeed on farmers themselves. As the hon. Lady said, rural farmers live in isolated areas, in close-knit communities and families; the loss of even one cow, let alone an entire herd of cattle, can have a devastating effect.

In the past few days, numerous farmers have said to me that they would like the Government’s eradication scheme to continue. Mr Harry Acland, of Notgrove Farm, said that

“the badger cull has been immensely successful here, from being shut down with TB on average for 10 months in the year we now only rarely have a break down (once this year) and matters are considerably improved”.

I have supported the cause of the eradication scheme for more than two decades, and worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), when he was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on the roll-out of the first, second and third cull areas in Gloucestershire, which have been transformational. In the first two years of the first cull, the TB incident rate was down 16%. After four years of the industry-led eradication scheme, between 2013 and 2017, the culling by farmers had reduced TB in cattle by 66% in Gloucestershire. Interestingly, while no change was found after two years in a 2 km buffer area around Gloucestershire, after four years there was a 36% decrease in the area. The so-called perturbation effect was not seen. Badger control licences now cover 57% of high-risk areas in the country. The efficiency of the licences has seen a 19% decline in TB incidence since the culling began in 2013, from 3,283 to 2,655. A comprehensive range of measures alongside the badger culling seems to be the most effective strategy for controlling the disease, with greater biosecurity, cattle testing and movement restrictions for TB-positive herds, and continued research into badger vaccinations, particularly oral ones.

Backing our farmers and ensuring a healthy, prosperous agricultural industry in Britain is a vital way to manage our sustainability. We cannot encourage people to buy local or in season if we do not protect our farms from devastation when TB infects entire herds. Grass-fed beef raised in this country has a far lower carbon footprint than importing foreign meats or plant-based products. Quite simply, we have the grass and climate to produce the best naturally-raised beef in the world. Eradicating this disease would be a quantum leap in increasing the productivity of British agriculture and provide a substitute for imports in a post-Brexit world. Jobs and livelihoods depend on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). What she said was very measured. [Interruption.] I do not know whether a debate is still going on—that is always better than comments sotto voce. My hon. Friend presented the case very well, so I will not go over what she said. Hon. Members will disagree on the way in which this terrible disease is currently being fought.

Of course, we are all in favour of eradicating bovine TB. My area has suffered from it more than most. I have seen what it does to both cattle and badgers, and anyone who does not believe that it is an awful disease does not know much about it. However, we will disagree on how we go about eradication—including the notion of when we will eradicate it, if we ever can. We have to hope we can, but that is at least questionable.

I shall start with what we know—and I will congratulate the Government. They were brave, given all the pressure that they came under, not to extend the cull to Derbyshire, because it is worthwhile looking at different models. I shall also start by saying that I think we could learn from what has happened in Wales. I heard what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) said, but the Welsh Government have taken a fundamentally different approach. I do not know enough about what the Scottish Government have done, but I hope that the UK Government are open to the suggestion that we can bear down on this disease in different ways. Wales, with its concentration on herd breakdown, has shown us at least some very different notions of what we can do.

Let me go back to what Labour did when we were in government. It is a bit of a myth that we did not spend an awful lot of time on this disease: we did, including through the work of John Krebs. I recall that one of Krebs’s conclusions was that killing badgers would make no significant difference to the spread of bovine TB in cattle. That was borne out by the independent expert panel, under John Bourne. We put serious resources into that, and it is where we got to understand the perturbation effect. All the scientists who were associated with it have come down very strongly against the current, privatised cull, given the potential damage that it does, with the spread outwards of this disease because of the perturbation effect.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Drew]

Obviously we are quite short of time, but I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. He is aware of the latest figures, which show very clearly that in Gloucestershire, far from there being a perturbation effect, the opposite has actually been the case: there has been a reduction in the level of the disease on the edge of the cull areas.

[Dr Drew]

Let me come to that later, because I will point out something slightly different.

We have had the two articles, and they are articles; they are not necessarily anything other than a position taken by both Brunton and Downs. Brunton used the findings given to her by APHA and she made the point that

“to use the findings of this analysis to develop generalisable inferences about the effectiveness of the policy at present”

was at least questionable. Downs was more definitive and did say that there was some strong evidence, in her opinion, that the cull was working. But this is where I disagree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). The current figures from Gloucestershire have shown an upward spike, in both incidence and prevalence, in the cull area. This is the problem with this disease: it is not a disease that can easily be measured in terms of one policy. My fear about the Government is that they have gone along the badger cull route as the main policy.

With regard to where we are, the one real criticism that I have of this Government is that I think it is outrageous that MPs are not allowed to know where culling is taking place. I recently had an incident locally that was about culling on the edge of the Woodchester Park area. Anyone who knows anything, and certainly those who have studied the matter, will know that Woodchester Park has spent more time than most of us have had hot dinners in trying to understand how the badger population is affected by bovine TB and in looking at the relationship—the transmission mechanism—between badgers and cattle. Certainly we had some evidence that a badger was shot within that trial area. I know the police will not prosecute, but I hope that the Minister will give me every assurance that there is no possibility of culling, because that would throw away 40-plus years of how we have been studying those badgers, and we need to keep doing that.

I have been talking about where we are. This, of course, is a stress-based disease. That is why I am quizzical, and want to hear from the Government, about why they have not yet responded to Godfray, because it is right and proper that we do respond to Godfray. We need to understand this issue. My area had a recent incidence of TB caused by the way in which people were putting in a new pipeline. Because they did not move the badger setts properly, five farms have gone down, no doubt because of the stress on the badgers that were moved wrongly and on the cattle, which suffered accordingly. It is important that we understand that a number of different things are involved.

I welcome what the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said about slurry. I hope that the Government are looking seriously at the work of Gatcombe, down in Dorset—on the Dorset-Devon border—where Dick Sibley has tried to do things.

Badger Culling

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a farmer, but I do not have any livestock. However, I represent one of the country’s greatest agricultural constituencies and, unfortunately, one of those that has been most affected by bovine tuberculosis. Sadly, I speak with some experience on this subject.

My constituency is home to one of England’s largest cull zones, spanning the whole of the north Cotswolds. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work and effort displayed by my farmers, who have committed a great deal of time and money to maintaining and protecting their badger cull zone in the face of numerous attempts at sabotage. To all those who say that farmers are not in favour of the culls, I simply say: why did they go to such considerable effort and expense if they did not believe that culling works?

The only real way to control TB in badgers is for scientists to invent an oral vaccine that could be incorporated into a bait to be fed to badgers. That method was successful in eradicating rabies in foxes on the continent. An oral vaccine for badgers has been “just around the corner” ever since I became a Member of Parliament in 1992. I urge the Minister today to redouble the Government’s efforts to find such a vaccine, because that would be the ultimate solution to this unpleasant problem.

This is an unpleasant problem. TB is a nasty disease, whether in cattle or badgers. Badgers who contract it either go to the bottom of the sett and die a long, slow, painful death from the disease, or lie semi-comatose at the top of the sett, with up to a third of their body covered by lesions. In that state, the animal is highly infectious to other badgers, so no wonder TB spreads from badger to badger.

It is important that we eliminate TB in badgers to prevent that cruel death among badgers. TB is also in cattle; not only does the disease cause them a great deal of pain, but they become less productive. When the disease is detected, they have to be slaughtered, so there is considerable economic loss to both the taxpayer and the farmers. In the past 10 years, a total of 314,000 cattle were slaughtered, costing the taxpayer and farmers more than £500 million; that will be £1 billion by the end of the decade. One need only see the emotional effect on farmers in my constituency of seeing the cattle that they have bred and cared for prematurely slaughtered. I think Opposition Members often forget the effect that this dreadful disease has on farmers.

[Richard Drax]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does he agree that those who oppose the cull look at the badger as a friendly, lovable animal, which in effect it is not? Factually, the badger is responsible for destroying bee hives, hedgehogs and ground-nesting birds such as skylarks, grey partridges and meadow pipits. [Interruption.] That is true. It is also responsible for the loss of wood warblers, nightingales and stone curlews. Those are facts. The badger is a danger, and like all wild animals that have no natural predator—just like deer and foxes—it should be culled, so that numbers are maintained.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. A reminder that interventions should be brief.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I commend my hon. Friend for putting some of the facts about wildlife on the record. He is right about the reduction in some of our bird and mammal species, such as the hedgehog.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to cite the source of the evidence he just supported?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Well, the source is evident to any countryman out there. There has been a rapid decline in hedgehogs, and we know perfectly well that badgers eat hedgehogs’ young, wild birds and birds’ nests. That, however, is not the subject of the debate, and I do not want to get drawn on that red herring.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Provided it is not on that subject.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is on facts and evidence. The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Clearly TB is a terrible disease, whether it is in badgers or cattle, and everyone wants to see it reduced. Looking at the evidence of the measures taken in Wales and the much less effective methods taken in England, how can he explain the disparity between the two?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales. In Wales, although BTB has decreased, the current vaccination programme operates in only 1% of the country and is only in its second year, so it is difficult to see how vaccinating has led to the reduction in BTB.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, before he asks me to give way, that other factors are involved. Having said that, I would like to comment on the costs, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who introduced the debate. He has read all the literature, and he is an intelligent chap of a scientific mind, so he knows perfectly well that for a vaccination programme to be successful, the badgers have to be vaccinated for five years. As he said, each year costs £662; that is well over £3,000 for every badger vaccinated. He also knows perfectly well that vaccinations have no effect on the poor, diseased badgers I described—the ones who are really suffering—that go on to spread the disease to healthy badgers. I therefore cannot see how a vaccination programme can be successful.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman please be patient? I will give way in a minute. He is jumping up and down like a yo-yo. The hon. Member for Newport West and anyone who knows anything about this subject will also know how difficult it is to trap a badger. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) implied, badgers do not just sit there in a trap and lie dormant; they bite and try every way of getting out of the trap, so the people who do the vaccinations have to be skilled and well trained. It is not easy to get all badgers into vaccination traps. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—I will give way to him once more—that vaccination is not very effective in itself. Where it is effective and has a role is in targeted areas around trial cull areas to stop perturbations spreading the disease further.

The hon. Member for Newport West, who mentioned the shortage of BCG vaccine, made a point that was in my speech: the BCG vaccine has been around for decades. It would be useful if my hon. Friend the Minister could say something about that, so that where we do want to carry out vaccination on the edges of trial cull areas, that option is available. We need to ensure that happens. I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth one more time. This is the last time I will give way, because a lot of people want to speak in the debate.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is generous. I never suggested that vaccination alone was a solution. The chief veterinary officer for Wales has been clear, and has spoken of a combination of increased testing frequency, improved biosecurity and other cattle control measures, as well as vaccination. There is a huge disparity between the 16% reduction in England and the 47% reduction in Wales. Clearly, there is a difference in the way the approaches work.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I was coming on to the issue of biosecurity, which obviously has something to do with it, as do more accurate tests. There are a number of things that could help. In a spirit of constructive debate, which I hope is what this afternoon is about, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister methods by which we can all help to eliminate the disease, and support the 25-year elimination programme. It is important, in the trial areas, that we eliminate TB in badgers, to prevent this cruel death. Farm biosecurity has rightly been improved, and that has been extended across the country. The Minister has, in this Government and the coalition Government, taken a number of steps to improve testing and biosecurity on farms. Examples include post-movement testing and more accurate skin tests in certain areas. All those things have a role to play; I hope we all agree on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

No. I did say that I was not going to give way again. Other people want to speak. By the time I finish, I will have spoken long enough and will be reprimanded by the Chair.

In other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and, I am afraid, Ireland, controlling the TB reservoir in wildlife has had a significant effect, eliminating or severely reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. Fifty per cent. of England is set to be TB-free by next year, with all 10 badger control operations achieving a successful outcome, according to the targets that have been set.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

As I was saying, we need to use all the methods at our disposal to get on top of this dreadful disease; I have already described the suffering in badgers and cattle that contract it. It is important that we find a variety of mechanisms in our locker to combat it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about this, but the opposition to the culls always harps on about biosecurity. However much the biosecurity is improved—some simple things can be done, and have been done over the years, such as putting the water trough and feed trough in places where badgers cannot get at them—the plain fact of the matter is that where badgers roam on pasture, and cattle feed on pasture, there is inevitably intermingling.

[Dr Paul Monaghan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I said I would not, but since we have had a break, I will give way one more time and no more.

[Dr Monaghan]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is highlighting some alleged facts in relation to the engagement that badgers have with cattle. I would like to suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that view whatever.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent chap, that every bit of logic points to the fact that there must be a link. If badgers have TB and cattle have TB—I do not think this island is alone; this takes place in the rest of the world —any scientific hypothesis would assume there is a link. It is not credible for him to suggest otherwise.

We have to take every opportunity to improve biosecurity in the ways I have mentioned. We also need to improve the testing. We know that the traditional swelling test leaves an element of cattle undetected. We need to work on better tests, whether they be skin tests or others. We need my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that we have the resources to research tests that are much more reliable. The polymerase test is being adopted in some areas, which gives a more reliable result. The problem is that it also detects the disease in some animals that do not have it, so they show up in the test as having it. We need to keep trying to develop a more effective test. As well as that, in edge vaccination areas, we need to stop the perturbation effect that I described. We rely on the Minister and the Government to ensure that we have sufficient supplies available to do that, because there is no doubt that that is part of the armoury.

The final part of our armoury is the trial culls. The opposition to the culls tries to maintain that the culls are not improving the situation. Any initial assessment of my constituency would show that where trials have taken place—for example, on the hard edge of the Severn—the incidence of TB has reduced. It is early days, but even the evidence from Krebs and pre-Krebs of the gassing of badgers showed that where badgers are eliminated, the incidence of TB declines.

One thing that my farmers want to know from the Minister today is what regime will succeed the original three cull areas. It seems that everybody has gone to a huge amount of trouble to eliminate badgers in those areas. If the whole thing were stopped dead now, it would be rather a waste of time. They want to know what sort of regime will succeed that. They hope that it will be a light-touch regime and not too onerous. I can tell my hon. Friend that getting the big trial area up and running in the north Cotswolds was very onerous indeed for the farmers involved. I think that he needs to look at ways in which the regime can be made lighter-touch.

In conclusion, my local farmers suffer emotionally and economically. The taxpayer suffers economically. The badgers suffer a painful death. The cattle become unproductive and have to be slaughtered prematurely. It is essential that the Minister reassures the House today that resources are being put into trying to find a satisfactory oral vaccine for badgers; that would be the ultimate solution to the problem. We need to find more effective skin testing, so that all the animals that have this dreadful disease are detected and eliminated from the national herd. We also need to look carefully at the spread of the disease to other species. There is increasing evidence that this terrible disease is spreading into the deer population. Perhaps my hon. Friend can say something about that this afternoon, and about the total situation in relation to TB. Is it stabilising in the main areas affected, or is it still increasing? We need to find that out.

We need to use all the tools in our box. I urge the Minister to keep on with the trial areas; that is what my farming constituents want. They believe that that method works; the proof will come when all the results are evaluated, but anecdotally, so far, they believe that it works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I did not expect there to be time for me to speak—I am a late entry—so I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and other Members who have spoken for approaching the issue in such a reasonable and measured way. Most of us have spent many hours debating this topic in this Chamber, and debates have not always been conducted in the most generous manner, so today has been an interesting and significant improvement.

However, I will argue against a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman raised—I know he will forgive me. Let me begin with the Government’s position. It was slightly suggested that the Government are interested in only one way of dealing with this problem. I suspect that the Minister will come to that, but throughout the time I have spent observing the Government’s reaction, they have always been adamant that culling is not the only solution, but part of the wider package involving a number of different measures that they are trying to test and improve all the time. Culling forms part of that, but of course it is not the only solution in town.

[Ian Paisley in the Chair]

To make a more light-hearted comment, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government’s policy as a crowd pleaser. From the Minister’s point of view and that of one or two colleagues, I suspect that a policy of culling wildlife is seldom likely to be much of a “crowd pleaser.” If there was another way in which the Government could have approached the problem, I suspect that they would have, so I am not sure that I would have used that expression.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The farmers would not want a cull if there was another way of doing it, because it is very expensive, time-consuming and everything else; it is just that there is no other way of doing it. Even if it means that there is a slight reduction, they are prepared to go to the expense and take the time to do it.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am unlucky enough to represent a constituency in one of the areas in the UK with the most herd breakdowns, where TB is most prevalent, and farmers in my area would absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments.

Rather conveniently, I was about to come to the Wales comparison. As the hon. Member for Newport West will recall, not many years ago the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in Cardiff first addressed the problem in policy terms. At that stage the advice that they—and the UK Government—had from the chief veterinary officer was that culling could form an important part of the overall control measures. It is being portrayed here, as it has been before, that somehow the advice to the Welsh Government has changed over the years; that somehow the Welsh Government are working to a different set of proposals. The truth is that the advice they have today is exactly the same as the advice they had then. For those who wish to go into the archives, that advice still maintains a reference to culling as potentially part of the programme for eradicating bovine TB in Wales.

It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) did, that the vaccination area in Wales, just north of where I live, covers a small, limited area. That vaccination programme has had to be suspended due to a reduced number of vaccines, as the hon. Member for Newport West commented. The reality is that the very encouraging statistics that have been quoted from Wales for the reduction in herd breakdowns from bovine TB are universal across the whole country. They do not simply reflect the activity in north Pembrokeshire and south Ceredigion. The implication that the vaccination programme has resulted in the 47% reduction in herd breakdowns completely misrepresents the truth. Those figures relate to a tiny land area just north of where I live, whereas the statistics that are being bandied about in the same paragraph relate to the whole of Wales. We keep talking about the importance of relying on science, but we also need to rely on proper, validated statistics. Making comparisons about a few hundred square kilometres of north Pembrokeshire and pretending that that is a reflection of the rest of Wales is a bit misleading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

Well, I consider it to be extraordinary, and I think that many colleagues do, as well.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The policing costs for the cull areas would be zero if it were not for the effects of the protesters; therefore we cannot compare one figure with another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) just said, and as I said in my speech, when the annual cost of vaccination is extended over five years the actual cost is not £660 per badger but £3,000.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It only goes to show that we really need proper evidence. However we look at it, it is much more expensive, per badger, to cull.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I extend my gratitude to everyone who has returned to the debate, as some hon. Members will have detected that I was getting towards the end of my contribution. I have gone through my notes to check whether I overlooked anything earlier.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds on the culls that have completed their four years, as I explained just before we suspended the debate, at the end of last year we consulted on having low-level maintenance culling to keep the population in check. That would very much be a small operation with much-reduced numbers—not like the culls we had for the first four years. My hon. Friend also mentioned deer and other species, and he is right that wild deer can carry TB, but our veterinary advice is that their role in transmitting TB is significantly lower than that of badgers, because of their nature and how they move about. TB spreads less freely among deer, because badgers live underground in close proximity to one another. Nevertheless, deer are a potential concern, but we believe badgers to be far more prevalent in spreading the disease, and do so in far greater numbers, in particular in the south-west, the high-risk area, so that is where we are focusing our attention at the moment.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked us to learn lessons from other parts of the UK. As I pointed out in his debate on badger culling and bovine TB, Scotland is officially TB-free, but Scotland has an incredibly low badger population. It is the only part of the UK not to have a large badger population.

In Northern Ireland, which was mentioned, the approach is to trap, test, and vaccinate or remove. We follow the evidence from that approach closely, but the difficulty is that there are no good diagnostics for picking up the disease, as I said earlier. The people in Northern Ireland might therefore release up to 40% of badgers that have the disease, although they would not have detected it. In addition, they could be vaccinating and re-releasing badgers that had already had the disease. That approach is by no means perfect, even though superficially it sounds logical.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), mentioned costs. All I can say is that in year 1, the costs were higher—a huge amount of surveillance and post-mortem testing was going on, we had the independent expert panel and policing costs were higher—but the costs have been reducing as we have rolled out the cull. We also have to put that in context: every year, the disease is costing us £100 million, so doing nothing is not an option.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

There has been universal agreement across the House on one point in the debate: if we can find an oral vaccine, that is a possible solution. Will the Minister say something about the Government’s research into oral vaccines? I am thinking in particular about meningitis B and a vaccine for babies, on which I have campaigned. That new vaccine is manufactured in a totally different way. Will he look at the science behind such vaccines to see what lessons can be learned?

[George Eustice]

One of the challenges of TB is that it is a bacterial disease, and it is notoriously hard to get vaccines to work in that context, whereas with a virus, if the vaccine is cracked, the virus is cracked—as with, for example, the Schmallenberg vaccine. We have to recognise that despite decades of medical research, the best TB vaccine available is still the BCG. As I have said, however, we are spending millions of pounds on research to develop an oral bait that badgers would take and that would immunise them. As the hon. Member for Newport West pointed out correctly, if we can get the vaccination right, a herd effect in badgers could pass on the immunity. We are also in the very early stages of looking at the notion of self-disseminating vaccination with a positive, contagious vaccine that could spread through the badger population. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds is right that that is an important area of research, but I go back to what I said at the beginning: vaccination is only one of our tools for bearing down on the disease. I am afraid, however, that a badger cull is an essential part of any coherent strategy to eradicate TB. That is why we are continuing with the policy.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the BVA and its comments on the free shooting of badgers. As I said before, I live quite near Bushy Park, across the bridge from Kingston, and every autumn a sign is put on the gate stating, “The park is closed today because a deer cull is going on.” No one bats an eyelid. People do not say, “This is terrible”, and we do not get protesters running around dressed up as deer or in the middle of the night, trying to disrupt things. People seem to accept that.

I put it to hon. Members that we have to keep some sense of perspective. We are trying to fight a difficult disease and the veterinary advice is clear: a badger cull has to be part of any approach to eradicating that disease. Is it really that different from the approach that we take to controlling other wildlife, such as foxes, or deer in royal parks?

Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I knew someone would say something from a sedentary position.

The Bill removes the restrictions on leases on the Kew Gardens estate. Currently, 18th-century legislation limits leases at Kew to 31 years. It is therefore none of our faults—not even Peter Tapsell’s. The measure modernises the provisions by allowing a lease of up to 150 years.

That change would allow Kew to generate revenue to improve the quality of the estate and support its world-class science. Income generation would help Kew achieve its core objectives and retain its UNESCO world heritage site status. The change would also enable the release of value from non-core land and property at Kew. Long leases would help Kew develop what it does and what it wants to do in future. Anybody who saw David Attenborough in the wonderful series at Kew will not disagree that it is a remarkable place. The aim is to help Kew in its ambition to increase its self-generated income and become more financially viable.

Kew Gardens, as Crown land, is governed by the Crown Lands Act 1702. The Bill modernises the constraints on Kew and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by allowing a longer lease to be granted on the land. The Bill removes the restrictions on the lease; it does nothing else.

What is the benefit of the legislation? Kew’s historic estate requires conservation and improvement. The Bill will enable income generation from the land at Kew that can be reinvested in the maintenance and development of the site. That will allow Kew’s infrastructure to be brought up to a standard that fully supports Kew’s ambitions and, more importantly, its mission. Basically, that has to happen because it is a UNESCO world heritage site. The financial benefits mean that it will have a time and place to raise the money it requires for the long-term commitment that it has shown in the past 150 years since it was set up.

The change does not allow the sale of the freehold land. The Government cannot sell the land because it remains with the Crown. Primary legislation would be needed if we wanted to do anything else to the land. Any proposals for new build or changes to buildings or their use, including the wider estate, will continue to be subject to rigorous review. There are tight restrictions on planning anyway, because Kew is a UNESCO world heritage site. We also know how rigorous planning is in that part of London.

Kew is in the process of updating its world heritage management plan, with UNESCO’s approval, with the firm intention of maintaining its status. Generating income from its estate will enable it to achieve its core objectives and retain its UNESCO world heritage site status. It is a UNESCO site because of the historic and contemporary scientific and horticultural activities that occur within its landscape. The need to maintain such activities means that this is an important little Bill. Income generation will continue for generations to come.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent Bill. I have two questions before he winds up. First, can he say why the figure of 150 years was chosen? As a fellow chartered surveyor, he will know that most leases are for either 99 years or 999 years, so 150 is unusual. Secondly, most explanatory notes to a Bill contain some form of financial appraisal. Can he say whether any figures have been produced to the benefit of Kew?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have asked the Minister for some guidance. The previous Crown lease was for 150 years. I certainly did not know that the Crown works on 150-year leases, and I have Crown estates in my constituency. So 150 is not unusual and no precedent is being set within the Crown Estate.

The changes being made use the precedent of how section 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1702 was applied in relation to the Crown Estate. The Act indicates that a limit of 150 years, which we are using here, is considered an appropriate length to achieve the policy objectives.

We talked about funding. A member from Kew is here taking a keen interest in our proceedings. There has been no financial appraisal yet. It is a chicken and egg situation, as my hon. Friend knows. We need to get the lease in order to be able to do what we want to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

As the hon. Gentleman is a conveyancer, he raises a very interesting point, which is not covered by the Bill. Does it allow for one 90-year lease, or more than one 90-year lease—in other words, successive 90-year leases? Perhaps that ought to be clarified.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset can clarify this, but the way I read it, clause 1(1) allows a Secretary of State—not an individual human Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State—to grant successive 150-year leases. That is what it enables; the power is vested in that office. One would expect there to be such leases, but of course we do not know what will happen down the road. None of us will be there then.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of when the current lease expires, so we know where we are in the process? If there are, for example, another 15 years on the current lease, will it be rolled over into a new 150-year lease from, say, next year? That is just so we are aware of the cycle.

In terms of what is envisaged in a longer lease, can the hon. Gentleman reassure me about two things? First, will the longer lease be on a peppercorn rent—in other words, a nominal rent, rather than a real terms value rent of thousands of pounds a year, which it would be at market value?

Secondly, he mentioned planning permission, which would restrict, for example, over-building on the site, but of course in a lease one can have restrictive covenants that trump planning permission. Those who are not planners or property lawyers may not know this, but even if planning permission is granted for a piece of land to construct buildings, for example, if the land is subject to a lease that has a restrictive covenant forbidding the construction of those buildings, buildings could be constructed legally pursuant to the planning permission, but cannot not be constructed in practice because of the restrictive covenant in the lease. That is a stronger brake on such developments, so I hope that can be done.

Those three things go together. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on the restrictions in the lease, on the restrictive covenants and on whether there is going to be a peppercorn rent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

This debate has been very useful indeed. I thank the hon. Member for North Tyneside for her kind words. I think that John Wood of Oxford hit it on the head in saying that the importance of this incredible place needs to be protected not just now, but for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, who is a surveyor, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, who is a solicitor, understand that better than I do.

There is no doubt about the Government’s determination to ensure that Kew remains the property of the people of the United Kingdom and that is it not frittered away. The Minister made it very clear, in response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, that the properties around the green need to be protected and need to provide an income source, which cannot happen at the moment. It is important that Kew gets funding from us, and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman is right. Nowadays, 125-year leases are unusual, but people want long-term security. We need to give Kew—this incredible world heritage site—the ability to say, “We know we can look forward 150 years, under the Crown and under Parliament’s direction, and sort out the things we need to sort out.”

I suggest that we all need to go to Kew to have a look, because I did not realise that there were seven properties around the green. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said that normally we take evidence and, as he said, evidence has been taken on the hoof. Perhaps we need to hoof it, while the tube is running, to go and have a look at this wonderful place. I know that the Minister has been to Kew many times, as has Lord Gardiner. It was certainly a favourite place of my children when they were younger.

I thank the hon. Member for Luton North, with whom I have worked for far too many years. He is quite right to bring up the ideas he raised, because we are setting this out for the future. We cannot say that we will be able to change it, because we will not. Kew has to move on. There is no doubt that what it has achieved for the past 150 years is breathtaking. One only has to look at the television programmes to see that. Because of its seeds database, if anything went wrong, we would have the ability to take out these wonderful seeds and start again. It looks after plants that may not be here in the future—that may die out. Its role is not just scientific; it is a guardian of our future. The hon. Gentleman is right that we must take that very seriously.

I thank all Members who have been here today, especially the Minister.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am sorry to be such a bore, but will my hon. Friend answer this point about the length of the lease? The Bill, at clause 1(1), is very clear and states that the powers

“include the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years.”

I assume that the Bill gives the power for a one-off 150 years, not a succession of 150 years. I say this so that when our successors in 150 years’ time look back at the Hansard of this debate they will have a clear answer as to what was in our minds at the time.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is a surveyor and is holding my feet to the fire—rightly so. Having talked to my hon. Friend the Minister, the power is for 150 years with the opportunity to renew in 150 years’ time. The explanatory notes also mention

“allowing leases up to 150 years.”

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

If that is the intention, may I suggest that the Bill needs to be amended in the other place to make that point absolutely clear? That is not what is stated on the face of the Bill. In my view, the explanatory notes differ from what is in the Bill.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I will therefore take the liberty of writing, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to express his concerns to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner. Lord Gardiner imparted to me who will take the Bill through the Lords but, embarrassingly, I have forgotten who it was already—I apologise to my hon. Friend and to you, Mr Turner, because my mind has gone completely.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I must immediately declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, the sister of the group to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) referred. In his excellent speech, he described, par excellence, the biodiversity that takes place on a well-managed moor. I will sketch for the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) got somewhere towards it—what the opposite course may entail.

I have been visiting an estate on the Caithness-Sutherland borders almost continuously for 36 years. When I started, there were a few grouse there. It was decided that the estate would gradually be stocked with more and more sheep. Tick numbers went up. Biodiversity on the moor went down. In the early days, there were raptors, skylarks, curlew, oystercatchers—the whole range of birds discussed today—but now virtually none of those birds remains. The quality of the moor has gone down considerably: the heather has got rank because it is not burnt; the number of grass species has immeasurably increased; and the amount of bracken, which is no good for any wildlife, has increased hugely. Without managed moors, I say to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), biodiversity would definitely go down. I disabuse her of one other fact: without driven grouse shooting, and without proper management, vast tracts of our precious moorland would degrade in the way I have described—we have already heard that moorland is rarer than rain forest and that in the United Kingdom we have 75% of the world’s heather moorland.

Many others have commented on the economic benefits of grouse shooting, so I will not go over that too much, except to say that the £50 million spent on grouse moors, and the associated £15 million spent on ancillary businesses, supports 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs, according to the Moorland Association—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) may have got the figure wrong in his excellent speech—and some 125 days of seasonal work. Those are considerable figures in some of our country’s remotest areas.

Some 2,715 miles of moorland drainage ditches have been plugged in the north Pennines alone as a result of revegetation with 120 hectares of bare peat, and there has been a reduction in flood risk. Many Members have commented on burning, but it is a fact that just 0.68% of heather moorland in Britain is burned each year. If it is burned properly under proper conditions—Members have talked about hot and cold burning and about rotation around the moor—it should not create the damage that has been mentioned.

On the hen harrier problem, the RSPB came to see me ahead of this debate and pleaded with me to be reasonable. I will be reasonable to the RSPB if it will be reasonable to the grouse landowners. The RSPB pulled out of the biodiversity action plan earlier this year, and I appeal to it to rejoin that action plan because only talking between the two sides is likely to solve the problems. I do not condone anyone who breaks the law, and it is important that we sort out the problem, but the fact that hen harriers do not breed may not in itself automatically be due to grouse shooting landowners. Many other things may cause hen harriers not to breed, including disturbance and weather.

[Craig Whittaker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

We are getting close to the end of this debate, so I will move on.

On licensing and regulation, some wish to ban driven grouse shooting altogether, which would be extreme and would be detrimental to the biodiversity of this country. Licensing is an option, but grouse moor owners already have to comply with a panoply of legislation. Like others, I pay huge tribute to the keepers who keep our precious landscape in its current state and maintain its biodiversity. They already have to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the heather and grass burning code of 2007 and the close season Acts for grouse. There is a panoply of legislation, and increasing regulation is rarely, if ever, a sensible answer. By using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the Government would only harm an activity that has immense economic and environmental benefits. Any discrepancy or case of malpractice should be dealt with locally, and I repeat that I do not condone any breaking of the law.

Finally, we have a fundamental choice between thriving grouse and wider bird populations, local tourism, conservation and strong rural economies; and the devastation of some of these remote areas, job losses, the loss of endangered species, an increase in disease and the loss of habitat. It is all too easy to impose a blanket ban on shooting, and it is irresponsible to ignore the hard science and the factual benefits that driven grouse shooting provides to the UK’s countryside.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

For the benefit of all Members here, this debate is scheduled to finish at 7.30 pm. Thanks to the brevity of Members who have spoken already, even if Members wish to take an intervention or two, there may be time to fit in all the remaining speakers and to hear from the Front Benchers before the conclusion of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Indeed. I have been one of the proponents of the need to get on with the wider catchment management of water and flooding, but the national resilience plan talks about a delay beyond this Parliament, which is why it is really important that we press on with the necessary changes. Winter is encroaching upon us and our constituents are clearly concerned.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to move on to the next issue. I have limited time and I have generously allowed interventions so far.

The use of lead shot has been much debated in this place, including last December, in a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). Lead remains a major pollutant, with 6,000 tonnes being discharged into the environment each year, 2,000 tonnes of which is from game shooting. Research is conclusive as to the environmental detriment caused by lead shot usage, and further concern has been expressed by the Food Standards Agency about the way in which the lead enters the food chain. Lead shot has been banned in Denmark for 20 years. We need to see progress on that.

I want to put it on the record that Labour recognises the conservation work that is being done on the upper moorland, and the professionalism of gamekeepers in executing that work. Conservation concerns have been expressed by Members from both sides of the House today.

We also need to look at cost. The cost is not just to the landowner, as many Members have indicated; there is a cost that is met from European Union funding, including money from the common agricultural policy, which, as the Secretary of State will want us to acknowledge, is public money in the first place, from people across our communities. The money also comes from non-departmental public bodies, such as Natural England and the national parks, and from the voluntary sector. Money from the public is, therefore, very much invested in the uplands. In other words, if the public are funding upper moors activities, they must have a say in how the money is spent. If the impact they see is detrimental, we can expect them to sign petitions calling for change. They have done that, and Parliament must listen.

Therefore, change we must, to ensure that soil, vegetation and hydrology are greatly improved. That must be a prime interest in land management, and if it means a move away from current business models, that is what must happen. I take issue with many of the contributions today about the all-or-nothing approach: either there is driven grouse moor shooting or we leave the land barren to develop itself. It does not have to be an either/or model. Thousands of volunteers work in conservation across the country, including in the upper moorland, and there are other opportunities for managing the land. We must recognise the volunteers who spend hours of their own time preserving our countryside. It cannot be an all-or-nothing approach, and the choice that has been put forward in the debate does not reflect the reality. I will give way on that point and will then conclude my remarks.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way right at the end. On the all-or-nothing point, does she accept that while there are problems—some more real than others—a ban on driven grouse shooting is not the way forwards in terms of biodiversity?

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman may have heard me calling for more research to take the whole debate forward. That is important.

Because of time, I will move on. We need to be cognisant of tomorrow’s debate on sustainability, and the points that Members have made on climate change are important. We have to understand the urgency of the issue. Conservation must be the prime driver and main consideration of our management of the uplands, as opposed to the pursuits carried out on the land. It is a matter of urgency, and we cannot just focus on the economic issues. The economic issues and the environmental issues are of equal importance. The crisis happening across the globe should focus everyone’s attention as a prime issue.

My question to the Minister is: how systemically is she prepared to look at the issues? Can we allow the burning of heather, which reduces the carbon storage properties of soil, impacts on hydrology, removes some mosses and leaves degraded soil and habitats behind? Is that acceptable? We would say no. Heather burning has also been cited by the Committee on Climate Change due to the depletion of carbon-rich peat soil, so how can we sustain that activity?

We know that some landowners will burn peat under agreement with Natural England—that is how the codes are managed—but we heard in the evidence session that some of those burnings go outside the allowed perimeters. We know that there are wider issues, too. We need to know how effective the codes are at managing the land. If there is further, conclusive evidence that peat burning causes environmental harm, will the Government call for a ban? In this post-referendum era, what further obligations will they place on upland managers to revegetate, to protect species and to hold more water in the uplands? This cannot just be a debate about choices and freedoms, as some Members have argued today. It must be seen as a matter of urgency to rescue our consumerist society from draining more natural resources.

Turning to raptors, it is of great concern that just three pairs of hen harriers were found on the moors in the past year. I am told that there should be 300 pairs —100 times the amount. Some 149 moors have no hen harriers at all. The numbers have fallen from last year, when there were 13 pairs. We are losing the species. It is a crisis. Numbers of peregrine falcons, white-tailed eagles and the awesome golden eagle—I once saw a pair soaring as I was hillwalking in Scotland—are declining, too. We need to ensure that we get on top of the issue of predation by humans.

I want to turn to the peer-reviewed research by Dr Ruth Tingay of the University of Nottingham. She has produced 30 peer-reviewed papers and 24 research papers. She highlighted how there have been 252 incidences of raptor persecution over the past 10 years. She highlights whether they were shot, disappeared, poisoned, caught by illegal pole traps and so on. The law is not effective, and we need to move it forward.

I am sure no one in the Chamber would condone wildlife crime, but positive action is needed for the hen harrier. The hen harrier action plan is not working in delivering an increased population, and that must be of great concern to everyone. What additional activity is the Minister prepared to undertake to ensure that we see the hen harrier population increase and tougher penalties on those who abuse the law? Financial penalties are clearly not enough. It is important to apply restrictive penalties, such as removing the right to manage a grouse moor. We also need to look closely at the Scottish licensing system and the shifting of responsibility around vicarious liability. We have seen two strong prosecutions in Scotland under the scheme. We need to look at whether that would lead to better managed moors as we move forward.

In the main Chamber, we have debated the use of snares and the impact that that has, but we need to look at the wider impact on wildlife. We have not heard about the mountain hare and the impact that culling is having on that species.

Badger Culling/Bovine TB

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Mrs Main, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that states I am a farmer. I represent one of the country’s greatest agricultural constituencies; sadly, it is also one of the constituencies that is most badly affected by bovine tuberculosis, so I speak with some experience on this issue.

The choices we face are stark. TB is an indiscriminate and profoundly unpleasant disease. In 2015 alone, 28,000 once perfectly content and otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered as a result of contracting this horrible disease. The Government have stated that the cost to the taxpayer was £100 million; on current trends that will be £1 billion cumulatively over the next decade.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, Opposition Members never mention the human stress caused to the farmers involved. Add to that the cost—

[Dr Paul Monaghan]

If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, I think he will find that I did make the point about the stress and hardship that farmers face as a result of the UK Government’s programme on badger culling.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am intrigued that an hon. Member from Scotland has secured this debate, because I did not realise that it was a problem in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must have few problems with his own constituents to have time to bring forward this debate.

As well as the emotional stress for the farmers involved, the cost to them is tens of millions of pounds. Add that to the costs to the taxpayer and this is a really serious problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, the only legal vaccine for badgers is the injectable BCG vaccine. It is in such short supply that it is needed for human use and therefore the vaccination trial in a quarter of the area of Wales has had to be curtailed. I hasten to add that I believe DEFRA is right to budget tens of millions of pounds to try and achieve an oral vaccine for badgers. That is the nirvana and when we get that, we will really make progress.

My constituents in the new badger cull area in Gloucestershire, with whom I have worked very closely and to whom I pay tribute, have had to go through an incredibly rigorous process to get the licence from Natural England. They are responsible for all the training and recruiting of firearms experts—forgetting all the equipment. I say to Opposition Members that they would not go to that huge amount of trouble and expense unless they really believed that a badger cull was the answer, so I think the Government are exactly correct in their 25-year vaccination strategy. We have to use all the tools in our box.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I met people from Natural England a few months ago and they very much gave me the impression that the process was little more than a rubber-stamping exercise and they took their steer from DEFRA as to whether they would go ahead. It came across to me as a political decision rather than, in any way, an academic exercise.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I invited the hon. Lady, when she was the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, to come to my constituency and meet some of these farmers, and I invite her to come and meet some of the people who have been involved in this licensing programme. She will find out the hours, days and weeks they have had to spend on this to get a licence. She will be amazed.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way. Does he believe that free shooting is acceptable?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I believe that the best way to cull badgers is with traps. Unfortunately in Gloucestershire, protesters have removed and damaged traps, which has made it essential to have free shooting in our armoury, as well as shooting badgers in traps. If there were no interference with the traps, I believe we could—as they have done in Somerset—operate culls on a much greater basis by caging badgers.

I repeat that the 25-year elimination strategy that the Government have announced is exactly right. We must use all the tools in our armoury, including ring vaccination, culls, vaccinations and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, tightening biosecurity. On farms, we legally have to do so. Every year DEFRA has tightened biosecurity, the regulations on pre and post-movement of cattle and the regulations on skin testing. Those are the directions in which we need to go, but we need to eliminate this terrible disease.

Snares

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares, the failure of previous attempts at voluntary and self-regulation amongst operators, and the continued suffering caused to thousands of animals every year by these traps; and calls on the Government to implement a full ban on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of snares at the earliest opportunity.

First, my thanks go to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring this motion to the House. I am keenly aware that, because of the urgent question on school funding, we are running late and that the summer Adjournment debate is generally oversubscribed, so I shall attempt to be brief and hope that we can conclude this matter in a reasonable time. I do not propose to push this matter to a Division, but let me assure the House that if there is a Division I will defend the motion.

Motions arising from Backbench Business debates have a somewhat uncertain pedigree—the status of them is disputed. They are not binding or mandatory. A number of motions have been passed in recent months urging the Government to take action, but the Government have declined so to do. Therefore, I have no illusion that, were this motion to be successful, Government action would swiftly follow; I suspect that it probably will not.

I will attempt to outline as briefly as I can what I believe to be an extremely compelling case for the prospect outlined in the motion. There is widespread support across the House for such a ban. I remember the late Eric Forth who used to be in the Chamber on Fridays meticulously—more so than just about anybody else. Whenever someone said that their Bill had widespread support from Members, he would wave his arms magisterially and say, “Where are they then?”

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Well, where are they then?

[Jim Dowd]

They knew you were coming! No, that is not true.

I am deeply grateful to the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Cat Protection League and other animal welfare organisations that have assisted me in this matter. I also know that there are Members who are ideologically opposed to bans of any kind. Obviously, I do not share that view myself, but we need to exercise caution and judgment. The legal framework in this country under the rule of law is generally about regulating what behaviour is and is not permissible and what should and should not be punished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to have caught your eye. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—in case the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), who introduced this debate, is interested, I am a farmer. I also draw attention to the fact that I am chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, which has an interest in this matter. I respect a lot of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I want to put my remarks into context and disagree with much of what he said.

The use of snares is an important tool in wildlife management, which benefits conservation. I was a little bit disturbed to hear the hon. Gentleman paying so little attention to species, such as curlew and lapwings, that are severely endangered—to the point of extinction in some areas—by fox predation. Therefore, it is necessary to control foxes in such situations if we want these important species to survive and thrive.

There is often no practical and effective replacement for snaring at crucial times of the year. That is particularly the case during summer and spring, because there are heavily leafed areas on trees and that is a time of year when lambs, piglets and other farmed animals are at their most vulnerable, yet at the same time, foxes are having their cubs and therefore become the biggest predators of those farmed animals. Snares are therefore an important part of fox control.

As the hon. Gentleman said, well-designed snares, used properly, are humane and effective in fox control. As he rightly pointed out, it has been illegal throughout the United Kingdom for over 20 years to use self-locking snares. DEFRA-commissioned research in 2012, which he referred to, identified how snaring can be improved through snare design and operating practices.

I want to quote the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust—the GWCT—which is widely respected for its independent research. It says:

“Foxes kill young lambs, piglets reared outdoors, and free range and domestic poultry...Foxes also prey on vulnerable wild ground-nesting birds like black grouse, partridge, lapwing, curlew and stone curlew, and on brown hare. Several of these are species of conservation concern…There are several methods to control foxes but none of them are effective in all circumstances. One method widely used for foxes is snaring. Snares are particularly effective for foxes in places and at times of the year when rifle shooting is not possible because of dense cover but when fox control may be critical for”

wildlife prey.

Indeed, the hon. Gentleman’s own colleague, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), when he was Under-Secretary of State at DEFRA, said:

“The Government consider that, where there is a need for wildlife management, the proper use of snares is one of a range of control methods. Used according to best practice, snares can be an effective and practical means of wildlife management and are needed where other forms of pest control are ineffective or impractical. In these circumstances, snares restrain rather than kill and may prove to be more humane than other methods. If snares were to be banned entirely it”

may

“encourage the use of more dangerous and illegal alternatives such as poisons.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 495W.]

In the time available—I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will try to rebut one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge. The 2012 DEFRA study set out to estimate the scale of the perceived problems. Inevitably, the resulting figures are an approximation, with considerable uncertainty attached, and I think that is where the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) got her figures from. It is important to realise that some organisations have constructed figures by extrapolating from small samples, which are unlikely to be representative of all the situations in which snares are used, or of current working practices.

For instance, the humaneness assessment in the DEFRA study involved a single operator working in one set of circumstances, while the assessment of the extent of use was made across a random sample of landholdings. If we multiply those figures, we get the sort of figure to which the right hon. Lady referred, which is most unlikely to be true.

Let us look at some of the evidence. An extensive field study involving 429 fox captures showed that, given good practice, less than 1% of snare-caught foxes were injured or killed as a result. Some believe that animals held in snares may seem all right at the time of release but go on to develop life-threatening necrotic conditions—the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge referred to that—but there is no evidence that that commonly occurs. On the contrary, foxes and badgers caught in snares by scientists for radio-tagging have typically not shown any abnormal behaviour or higher mortality. In GWCT studies, some individual foxes have been recaptured in snares, with no apparent ill effect.

How much time have I got?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Off the top of my head, I cannot quite remember the exact phrase, but there is something like an international index. The UK, alongside, I believe, countries such as Austria and Switzerland, is reckoned to be in the top five. I also believe that that is an independent assessment. I will let the hon. Lady know what I am referring to in the usual way, if she is agreeable to that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I congratulate my hon. Friend—I am sorry I failed to do so in my speech—on her new elevation. We are very pleased to see her in her current position. Does she agree that nobody wants unnecessary suffering from snaring or anything else? Will she therefore agree to provide a new updated code, so that best practice can be followed?

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I would just ask him to be patient and wait a few minutes.

Returning to the recognition that snares are capable of causing injuries, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prohibited the use of inhumane self-locking snares. I recognise what the hon. Member for York Central said: that they are accepted to be in law mechanisms that tighten and cause asphyxiation. The 1981 Act requires trappers to check their snares at least once every 24 hours. Hon. Members will also be aware that the Act prohibited the use of snares to take certain species, including badgers, otters, red squirrels and hedgehogs. The Deer Act 1991 offers similar protection to any deer. Under the Animal Welfare 2006 Act, there is a legal responsibility to prevent unnecessary suffering to any animals under human control, including any animal restrained in a snare.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge refers to the inefficiency of snaring, but I am not aware that he has suggested other methods that would be more efficient in wildlife management. I recognise that the hon. Member for York Central referred to several alternatives, including chemicals. As yet, I am not aware that they are shown to be more efficient or effective. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) referred to efficiency. I think that is borne out, although I recognise some of the issues addressed.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge and other Members referred extensively to the 2005 code of practice issued by DEFRA, and to the 2012 study. He mentioned a number of issues he would like to see addressed. That is a view shared by many people. Land management organisations and gamekeeping associations around the country have developed a new code of best practice on the use of snares for fox control in England, which would also be suitable for the control of rabbits. Designed and written by a number of stakeholders, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the National Gamekeepers Organisation, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance, of which I note the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a member, this new guidance builds on the previous DEFRA code of practice, but draws on reliable research conducted by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust by setting out principles for the legal and humane use of snares.

The capture of non-target species can be reduced by appropriate setting, taking into account the behaviour of the target animal. The new code of practice emphasises this very clearly, stating that if non-targets are likely to be caught, snaring should not be used. Improvements in snare design mean that it is far more likely that non-target species, even if caught, can be released unharmed.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds talked about well-designed snares and started to explain, before he was cut off in his prime, how best practice can tackle a lot of these issues—a point reinforced by the hon. Member for Strangford. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse drew attention to the fact that snares are mainly used by gamekeepers, rather than farmers. I would point out that snares are used by different groups, including gamekeepers and farmers. These different groups operate in very different environments and have different pressures. Snares are often the most appropriate mechanism for gamekeepers. Upland areas have a different habitat and environment, with more unrestricted areas than farmland.

There have been many references to practices in Scotland and the Welsh code, which the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) said should be made statutory. I think we should give the new code of practice, which I understand is very similar to the Welsh code, a chance to come into effect before even considering any further regulation.

If people do not believe the law is being enforced they should report such incidents to the police. Many forces have rural and wildlife crime units. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said that the wild animals in circuses prohibition will be delivered in this Parliament. I point out gently to the hon. Member for Bristol East that the Labour Government were in power for 13 years and the Ministers of the day were not persuaded to legislate on a ban.