Animal Welfare (Exports)

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys]

I know that the trade in Ireland is much bigger than it is on the mainland—or certainly than it is in England. I am interested in this issue in a broader sense, right along the food supply chain, and I believe that we have undervalued food across the board. We need to ensure that farmers are getting fair prices, but this trade is not the answer to the fundamental problem of the market not delivering good value to farmers. We need to address the problem comprehensively, and I know that it is the will of my constituents—and of many people around the country—that we should be seeking to impose a ban on live animal exports. There is no reason why farmers should not be able to get good value for their animals by exporting them after slaughter, rather than on the hoof.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I, too, would support a ban on live animal exports. Would she acknowledge that the journey of animals being exported for slaughter often starts many miles and many hours from the port from which they exit this country, and that it can continue for many kilometres and many hours before they arrive at their destination on the continent, where they are to be slaughtered?

[Laura Sandys]

I totally agree. The transportations that go out of Ramsgate can come not only from the north of England but from Ireland, and we can speculate that they are ending up in southern France, Spain and sometimes Greece. I still do not understand how that business model can deliver value, given the time taken to transport the animals from one end of Europe to the other, along with the cost of transportation, licensing costs and lairage. I do not understand the fundamentals of the business of transporting animals that far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on her efforts to arrange a debate in the Chamber on this subject, and on her speech. She is obviously doing a very good job in representing the wishes of her constituents. I am very disappointed that the High Court overturned the moratorium that Thanet district council had imposed on animal exports until it could be sure that animal welfare standards were being met and that RSPCA inspectors would be able to check the conditions of the animals, but I understand that the council intends to appeal, and I wish it every success.

My starting point is the same as that of the hon. Member for South Thanet. I think that live animal exports are cruel and unnecessary, and I should like them to be banned. I agree with Compassion in World Farming, which has said:

“Live exports have no place in modern British farming. We must end the trade once and for all.”

[Henry Smith]

Today we are discussing live animal exports, but there are live animal imports as well, and some of those animals are primates. In 2011, up to 1,500 primates were imported to this country for the purpose of experimentation, from countries as far away as Mauritius. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should also consider the welfare of animals that are imported to this country, whether for food or for experimentation?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking out on animal welfare issues, as I know he has done on a number of other occasions. I agree that those imports are cause for serious concern. The trade in great apes has already been banned, and I think that we should go further and consider banning the trade in all primates.

Although this does not appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I think it is well known that I have been a vegetarian for a long time. My 21st anniversary as a vegan is approaching: that was a new year’s resolution in 1992. Of course I would rather people did not eat animals at all, but given that they will be doing so for at least the foreseeable future, I think that UK animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the farms where they were reared, and—I understand that the Government agree with this—that there should be an export market for meat rather than for live animals. At present, however, we are herding live, terrified animals into cramped conditions and transporting them overseas, often on journeys lasting several days.

According to Compassion in World Farming, more than 90,000 cattle and sheep were exported during the 18 months between January 2011 and June 2012, mostly through Ramsgate. The sheep tend to be exported for slaughter in continental abattoirs, while the calves are sent abroad to be fattened for veal. The long journeys are stressful for both. The journeys to Spain, for example, can take more than 90 hours, and the calves are often only two or three weeks old when they are exported. Dr Weeks of Bristol university has concluded that

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

Dr Weeks says:

“Their immune systems are not fully developed”,

which makes them more susceptible to disease. They are also poorly adapted to cope with the temperature changes that can happen during the journeys, and with many other aspects of their transport.

Concern has also been expressed about the conditions of the animals when they arrive in the countries to which they are exported. Once they reach the continent, many calves are reared for veal in conditions so poor that they would be banned in Britain on welfare grounds. They are kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems are illegal in the UK, as our legislation requires calves to be provided with appropriate bedding. We should ask ourselves why we are sending animals abroad to be kept in conditions that we would not allow in the UK.

The same applies to sheep, many of which are exported from Britain to be slaughtered in France. A few years ago, an investigation of 25 French slaughterhouses by a French animal welfare organisation revealed many breaches of EU legislation that was designed to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. British sheep are also exported to the Netherlands. A report published earlier this year by a European Union organisation identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. Once the animals leave Britain, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. The National Farmers Union claims that they are treated well before and during transportation, but the recent deaths of sheep that were being transported through Ramsgate demonstrate that that is not always the case.

I consider it highly unsatisfactory that live exports cannot be legally prohibited. In general, I accept that as members of the European Union we sign up to collective laws and that that is part and parcel of the deal, but yesterday I took part in a protest outside Fortnum and Mason about its sales of foie gras. The situation in the United Kingdom is fairly ridiculous: along with 17 other countries, we ban the production of foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban imports from France. PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has carried out undercover filming which reveals terrible conditions, including the grotesque force-feeding of the geese that produce foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban it because of EU free-trade laws, and we are obviously in a similar position when it comes to live exports. I accept, at least for the moment, that we cannot prohibit the trade, but we need to consider how existing regulations can be properly enforced and the highest possible animal welfare standards adhered to.

The last Labour Government tried to strengthen EU regulations. In November 2011, the European Commission published a review of the animal transport regulation— Regulation 1/2005—which stated that severe welfare problems still existed. It called for new ways of improving the implementation of existing rules—including satellite tracking systems, more frequent inspections, and better reporting on compliance by member states—rather than proposing any changes to legislation. In June this year, however, the EU Health Commissioner, who has responsibility for this issue, said that current legislation could not adequately protect animals on long journeys, and that the EC would propose a review of EU legislation including a proposal for reduced transport times. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether, rather than merely ensuring that the existing regulations are “enforced strictly and rigorously”, as they have said is their intention, the Government would be prepared to support a review of the current legislation as well.

Many MPs and Members of the European Parliament have backed the campaign by Compassion in World Farming to set a maximum limit of eight hours for the transport of animals, and more than 1.1 million EU citizens have signed a petition requesting a time limit. The campaign calls on the EU to amend its legislation so that live animals can never be transported for more than eight hours, and yesterday the European Parliament reaffirmed its support for it.

Badger Cull

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

There are three principal reasons I support today’s motion. First, I believe that a badger cull would be damaging to wildlife. Secondly, the science suggests that a cull is unnecessary and that there are more effective solutions. Thirdly, and most importantly, evidence suggests that a cull would not significantly reduce the incidence of bovine TB and would therefore not benefit cattle herds and the agricultural industry across the country. As we have heard this afternoon, bovine TB is a real and devastating issue for many farmers. I think we all agree that it is vital that we find an effective long-term measure to eradicate the disease.

I welcome the Government’s announcements on improving cattle testing, movement controls and biosecurity. However, the most reliable scientific evidence suggests that badger culling is a short-term, unsustainable and ultimately ineffective approach. Allowing the shooting of free-ranging badgers in TB-affected areas is an untested and dangerous move that has no place in a science-led policy. Indeed, rather than solving the problem, it risks making matters worse by disrupting the social structures and allowing the spread of badgers to new areas.

Licensing the shooting of one of our best loved native species has also, unsurprisingly, generated considerable public opposition. A more sustainable approach to the problem should involve pushing forward with the injectable vaccination of badgers in areas in the south-west and other parts of England along with increasing efforts to develop a vaccine for cattle. The vaccination of both badgers and cattle, together with enhanced cattle testing and improved biosecurity measures, is the publicly acceptable and ultimately effective long-term solution.

If badgers are to be trapped before being shot, as DEFRA suggests, why not simply vaccinate rather than kill the badger while it is caged? The DEFRA announcement comes despite scientific studies that have shown that culling would be of little help in reducing bovine TB and could actually make matters worse in many areas. Indeed, the cull could see badger populations decline by more than 70% and in some areas none might survive.

Culling cannot be selective, so many perfectly healthy badgers will be slaughtered as some awful collateral damage. After 10 years’ work, the independent scientific group concluded in 2007 that

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

Subsequent monitoring of cull areas showed a very modest drop in cattle TB levels, averaging just 16% after nine and half years. Indeed, DEFRA’s wildlife advisory body, Natural England, which will have to implement the Government’s proposals, has said that it has little confidence that such an approach can deliver the predicted benefits.

At least a fifth of cattle herds, and possibly up to half of them, might be harbouring bovine TB even after they are thought clear of infection according to a recent Cambridge university research article. Worse still, there is greater potential for TB to spread within the larger herds that are now becoming more prevalent. Those conclusions further justify an urgent introduction of both cattle and badger vaccination. Those conclusions emphasise that the effect of cattle-to-cattle contact is even greater than previously thought and so wildlife culling is even less significant.

A second problem has been the massive increase in liver fluke, which affects the accuracy of the standard test for bovine TB. This parasite is carried by snails and both thrive in warm, wet summers. Up to a third of cattle with bovine TB could be missed by the standard test for the disease if they are also carrying the parasite, hampering the eradication programme according to research by Liverpool university. The research carried forward work published in May last year by the veterinary sciences division of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland.

The significant scientific doubt over the effectiveness of a badger cull and the strong evidence that it might make the incidence of bovine TB worse means that DEFRA must urgently reconsider the killing of badgers, if it wishes to proceed next summer, until the comparatively enormous reservoir of disease in herds is cleared. It should introduce compulsory annual testing of all cattle with the more sophisticated techniques that are now available.

The killing of a protected wildlife species such as the badger is even less relevant. The Cambridge research estimates that there is a high rate of reintroduction, particularly in high-incidence areas. The authors add that the high rate of external infection, both through cattle movements and environmental sources, must be addressed if recurrence is to be reduced. Its results are in line with the main conclusions of the £50 million randomised badger culling trial of 1998 to 2007, that while badgers are implicated in bovine TB, killing them will make no meaningful contribution to its control, and that weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of the disease in areas where bovine TB occurs. It added that in some parts of Great Britain, cattle are likely to remain the main source of infection, and called for the rigid application of cattle-based control measures.

Bovine tuberculosis is a serious problem for UK farmers, deserving the highest standard of evidence-based management. Increasingly, that is why many farmers are against the cull, including, I might add, my brother, who has been farming for over a quarter of a century. New figures issued by DEFRA show a marked drop in bovine TB levels, and that is mostly down to increased testing. There has been a notable decrease in the incidence rates over the past six months, mainly as a result of the increased number of tests on unrestricted herds compared with last year. The provisional June 2012 incidence rate is 4.2%, compared with 6% in June 2011.

By increasing biosecurity, which the British agricultural industry needs properly to address, we can reduce bovine TB. By increasing vaccination in badgers and cattle we can prevent the unnecessary killing of this much loved British species, and by increased testing we can ensure that our agricultural industry recovers from this most damaging disease.

Flooding

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance; details will follow shortly. As I said, however, having inherited a situation in which the previous Government failed to come up with a successor to the statement of principles, I am proud that we have found a way forward with the insurance industry that, above all, guarantees that universal and affordable insurance remains available to all, including her constituents.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The flooding in west Sussex has been of great concern, but will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government’s significant investment in the upper river Mole flood alleviation scheme, which is now starting to protect homes and businesses in Crawley constituency?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I welcome it, and, through my hon. Friend, I would like to pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and communities following that severe flooding incident in Sussex. Almost two months’ rain fell in 36 hours. It was encouraging that the equipment we provided, within the county and across county boundaries, was brought into play in that time of need, as the procedures required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the extent of drought.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had on the extent of drought; and if she will make a statement.

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

Drought is a natural phenomenon, so with the Environment Agency and water companies we have been drawing up a contingency plan. Since May 2011 we have held three drought summits and established the national drought group to co-ordinate action to manage the impact of the drought. Water companies are taking action to conserve the public water supply, and that is why we put resilience at the heart of the water White Paper.

[Mrs Spelman]

I could be deluded into thinking that I had the power to make it rain on the basis of this week, but I know that no Government can make it rain. The Government saw the drought coming, warned farmers of the need to make preparations, and said that if we had a second dry winter we would be in a drought situation. The water companies have made the correct decision to introduce temporary restrictions for non-essential uses of domestic water supply in the parts of the country that are water-stressed.

[Henry Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what plans the Government have to create water interconnectivity between the regions of the United Kingdom, so that we have more of a national grid of water supply?

[Mrs Spelman]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

The cross-party board that examined the 29 applications from local economic partnerships and from some local authorities was really impressed by the rural growth network in my hon. Friend’s constituency. A credible, experienced set of partners brought it together, and it is a good network. Those partners are accustomed to delivery and believe that they will lever in £50 million of investment. That will mean jobs and technology-led industries, and I look forward to seeing how successful it will be in the coming years.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that regard, it relies heavily on the scientific expertise of its key staff and, accordingly, I should like to record formally the appointment of Professor Ian Boyd as my Department’s new chief scientific adviser. Professor Boyd will take over from Professor Sir Bob Watson, whose experience and expertise have been tremendous in the service of successive Governments.

[Henry Smith]

Earlier this year, about 650 elephants were slaughtered in Cameroon for their ivory. Sadly, that is just one example of that vile, illegal trade. What work is my right hon. Friend doing in the international community to ensure that it is stopped once and for all?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, it is a despicable trade, and my hon. Friend, who has Gatwick airport in his constituency, will know how hard we work on our borders to deter it. We are working through the convention on international trade in endangered species to ensure that no further sales of ivory take place without firm evidence that such sales will reduce poaching. In the past year we have contributed £134,000 to Interpol and CITES precisely to combat the illegal ivory trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I did indeed come straight back from a ministerial preparatory conference in Delhi, step off the plane and brief two large groups—the business community and the NGO community—at round-tables, the reason being that the Brazilian hosts intend in the days preceding the ministerial segment for business and for civil society to have a specific convention on sustainable development 20 years on from the original summit. We are seeing some early proposals from the Colombians on sustainable goals. In the run-up to Rio, we should reconvene the round-tables when there is something a bit more specific on the table, and work closely with both groups, the important thing being to get a good UK attendance.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T7. The Food Standards Agency recently announced proposals for changes to the meat hygiene charging system, and I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s views on them.

[Mr Paice]

As my hon. Friend says, the Food Standards Agency has produced proposals that would lead to full cost recovery, a principle with which the Government agree. However, the magnitude of the increases for some abattoirs is extreme, and we are looking at that matter with concern because we clearly do not want abattoirs to be driven out of business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions she has had on the introduction of a prohibition on battery cages for laying hens.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had on the introduction of a prohibition on battery cages for laying hens.

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

At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 February, some member states sought more time to implement the ban on conventional cages, which is coming into force on 1 January 2012. I was the first Minister to emphasise that any delay would be grossly unfair to egg producers in the UK and other member states that have made significant investments to adapt and enrich cages. The Government will continue to play a full part in EU discussions to find a practical solution.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for her excellent efforts. Did those discussions also include the importation of derived products into this country?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that we are clear about the provenance of liquid-egg and dried-egg products. Many farmers in the European Union have made the investment to improve the welfare of laying hens, and therefore the deadline has to be respected.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

I do, and that is a very visible shift in subsidy policy that has taken place over the past 10 or 20 years. Instead of subsidy of food production simply for food production’s sake, we have moved much more towards environmental stewardship. The point I was trying to make was that we should not assume for one moment that environmental stewardship is not taken extremely seriously by farmers across all aspects of agriculture, not just food production; they value environmental stewardship and have been part of it because they feel that that is their duty, not only to their farms but to the community. That has always been the case, yet that gets lost in these debates. Somehow, there is the underlying view that we have to make farmers take environmental stewardship seriously. That is not the case. The farmers whom I know take it extremely seriously. The only barrier between them and successful environmental stewardship has generally been politicians, not a desire to make money at the expense of the environment.

If I were to shine a bright light on the Bill I would point out that surely any decent Secretary of State of whatever party would automatically insert into their thinking, if not their legislation, all the checks and balances that we are told are now so essential that they have to be enshrined in law. I have to ask why, over the past 13, 15 or 20 years, successive Secretaries of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, did not do that as a matter of routine.

I recall the creation of something called the Rural Advocate under the previous Government. I am not even sure, to my great shame, whether he still exists, but his job was to oversee a sort of rural-proofing exercise to ensure that any legislation—not just that sponsored by DEFRA, but legislation from any Government Department —passed the test as far as rural communities were concerned. My criticism is that perhaps the Bill takes far too narrow a line of attack, at this stage, at any rate.

I want to move on to the vexed question of sustainability. It is difficult to define it as accurately as we might like in this debate. I suspect that it is tempting for Members, particularly new Members, to resist the chance of objecting to anything that has “sustainability” in the title, because we may somehow be seen as regressive or as dinosaurs if we do.

As far as the Bill is concerned, most of us have come under heavy bombardment over the past few weeks from various pressure groups, some of which have had more compelling arguments than others. Three particular people have pushed me as close as I was happy to go towards supporting the measure. One was my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith); I value his opinion on every subject, but we cannot quite agree on this one. I was subject to some late-night lobbying yesterday from Mr Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, but even his persuasive argument, including the promise of a River Cottage hamper for Christmas if I changed my mind, was insufficient. I should also mention the fantastic efforts and unique lobbying skills of Mr Stanley Johnson, who is up in the Public Gallery today, but even the combined heavy bombardment from those three expert individuals, whom I respect greatly, failed to convince me that we are anywhere near defining sustainability as well as we might, for the purposes of the Bill becoming an Act.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I agree that sustainability is a much abused word, but does my hon. Friend not agree that sustainability involves economic, social and environmental concerns, both in this country and around the world?

[Simon Hart]

I do, and we sometimes forget that there is a strong social and economic ingredient in that definition; it has been missing so far in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South will tell us that we have got that wrong, but I have seen nothing, in the hundreds of e-mails that we have had so far, to convince me that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has been properly addressed.

It is odd that the Bill focuses purely on livestock production. It seems obvious that if we are to talk about sustainable farming, we should not restrict ourselves purely to livestock. I am not convinced that the Bill has been properly considered in that respect. To pluck one example from the sky—no pun intended—let us consider poultry production. It seems odd that we have not properly examined the argument that intensive poultry production has less of an adverse carbon footprint than extensive poultry production. That has not been addressed, nor had consumer purchasing habits until the hon. Member for North Antrim raised them. There is a reference in the Bill to rural resilience. I do not know what that is, in the context of the Bill, but I do know that it is something with which I have been extremely familiar for 10 years. The resilience of the rural community is far from being a satisfactory excuse to increase the burden of regulation on the rural community. We cannot possibly simply depend on the resilience of our friends in the livestock industry for the purposes of the Bill.

We have not discussed in any great detail the Bill’s possible adverse effects on livestock producers. There was one reference, and only one, this morning to profit—a sort of dirty word, it seems, when we talk about sustainability. Unless there is profit in farming, and unless there is the sort of profit that enables farmers to invest long term as opposed to short term, then there will be no sustainability of any sort—no environmental sustainability, no social sustainability and no economic sustainability. There was a famous bumper sticker in America a year or so ago, which quite simply said, “No farmers, no food”.

We overlook the sustainability question and the long-term profitability of farming at our peril. While there has been a bit of a debate about intensive dairy units and what number of cows constitutes unacceptability, it seems interesting that, at long last, there are people out there who are prepared to consider investing several million pounds in UK agriculture. We have been striving for generations to persuade people to do that. The moment somebody comes up with a cost-effective way of doing so, we fall on them like a pack of wolves and try to stop them. We have got to be careful about being carried away by a scare story.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Henry Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am very grateful indeed to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak on the Gracious Speech. May I say how well the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke in his maiden speech? I must also pay tribute to my predecessor, Laura Moffatt, who represented the Crawley constituency for 13 years. Laura did that job extremely diligently. I pay tribute to the work that she, a former nurse, did in speaking up in this place on behalf of, and seeking to change the regulations for, health care workers who suffer from needlestick injuries. She certainly helped to provide a safer environment for the front-line health care workers whom we rely on in our national health service. That is highly commendable. Even before she was elected in 1997, she had a long and distinguished career as a member of Crawley borough council and she was also a former mayor of the borough, holding such important positions as chair of the housing committee. We should all pay tribute to Laura for her long public service as a nurse—she was the first nurse ever elected to this place—as a borough councillor, as a mayor and, most recently, as Member of Parliament for Crawley.

Crawley is a great borough and a great constituency, and it is my great honour to have been elected by the people of Crawley to represent them in this Chamber. Crawley is a new town, but has a long history. The three principal villages that made up the original area were Crawley, Ifield and Worth, all of which were mentioned in the Domesday Book, but it was perhaps in the middle ages that, through its iron working, Crawley really started to flourish as a centre of industry. Many of the remnants of that industry, in the form of hammer ponds, still exist in the area: there is still a hammer pond in the centre of Tilgate park—the premier park of the constituency—now providing a great leisure facility for families to enjoy when the weekends are sunny.

Several centuries ago, Crawley expanded further as the main stopping-off place for people travelling from London to the south coast. Notable buildings include the medieval George hotel in the high street, which is still a hostelry today. Perhaps Crawley really came into its own when it was designated as a new town after the second world war. It was originally designed to have a population of approximately 50,000 people, although it has grown to in excess of 100,000 people today. It is a very successful community.

Whether they be first or second generation, people in Crawley have typically come from somewhere else either in this country or from around the world. I am a migrant to Crawley constituency myself. However, there is an extremely strong sense of community for a new town, which holds the local community in very good stead indeed.

One of the most significant industries—in fact, the most significant—in the constituency is the nation’s second-largest airport, Gatwick. It is a major local employer and driver of the local economy. I am delighted that the new coalition Government, West Sussex county council, Crawley borough council, the new owners of Gatwick airport, as well as myself, all agree with the future way forward for the airport in that we all want to see passenger numbers grow from the current 35 million throughput passengers a year up to a potential 45 million, and we want to see many more scheduled flights rather than just charter and low-cost flights departing and entering the airport. Equally, we agree with the new coalition Government and the new owners of Gatwick airport in rejecting runway expansion at this time. I think that that will provide the economic growth that we need for the airport and therefore for the local economy, while safeguarding and helping to protect the local environment. The balance between achieving economic development while ensuring that we protect and enhance our environment rather than destroy it as we go forward was debated earlier today and it will continue to be debated not just as an issue relevant to my constituency, but to the country as a whole.

I wish to raise another issue relevant to the Crawley constituency—health care. It was a source of great regret when, five years ago, Crawley hospital saw its A and E department downgraded so that people had to travel 10 miles up the road into another county to receive those vital services. Several years prior to that, Crawley hospital saw its maternity unit transferred out of the constituency—indeed, out of the county as well. During the obviously happy time when my two children were born in 2003 and 2005, it was a source of regret that they could not be born in their home town. Another source of regret is that Crawley is the only settlement in the UK with a population of more than 100,000 that does not have a hospital to supply A and E and maternity services. I was involved in an important campaign which I co-chaired with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude) to get those hospital services brought back to the important population and transportation centre that the Crawley constituency represents.

I want to mention one special community that has come to live in Crawley. I mentioned that many people have chosen to settle there from around the country and around the world. Citizens of the Chagos Islands, particularly of Diego Garcia, were exiled from their home islands in the late 1960s. A decision was made by Order in Council—it did not come to this place, which I think was quite wrong—to make way for an airbase on Diego Garcia, which meant that those people were deported from their home island against their will, and they had to live in relative poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Seven years ago, they started to arrive at Gatwick airport and they have been very successful in making Crawley their home. There is now a population of nearly 2,000 Chagossian and Diego Garcian people and their descendants in Crawley.

I look forward to arguing on behalf of those people, during my time as Member of Parliament for Crawley, that they have a human right to return to their islands should they so wish, either to visit or to live there permanently. I believe that, having been removed in quite a shameful way, they should be allowed to claim that human right. It is an honour to be given the opportunity to speak on their behalf in my maiden speech.

Tomorrow, I shall cease to be leader of West Sussex county council, a position that I have been privileged to hold for nearly seven years. I cannot help thinking that, after being a somewhat big fish in a small pool, I am now a somewhat smaller fish in a somewhat larger pool. I hope that, as I become used to these larger waters, I shall be able to speak up for the rights of local government and the principle of decentralisation of power away from Whitehall to our local authorities. I believe it is a very important principle that, where services are largely locally delivered, they should be largely locally decided on. I look forward to playing my part in this coalition Government in the devolving of power down to our elected local governments, and the extension of the authority that individuals and communities have over the important public services that are locally delivered.

Let me again thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for calling me during the debate on the Gracious Speech. I am grateful for the attention of the House.