Flooding

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

I will be as brief as I can to allow other Members into the debate. The impact of the floods on Cumbria cannot be overstated: homes and businesses face significant damage; schools have been closed; and roads have disintegrated, as the Minister knows only too well. The estimated cost of the damage to Cumbria has been put at £600 million, but the truth is that it is likely to be higher. The A591 from Grasmere to Keswick has become completely impassable. Parts of the carriageway have crumbled under the force of the flooding. It is a key route for many people, including those travelling to schools. The damage caused to this road has put a 35-mile additional journey on people, which is having a profound impact in terms of time, cost and everyday life.

The support announced so far by the Government is welcome, but until it translates into a new road surface it is simply not enough. The highways authority, Cumbria County Council and my constituents need the Government to be more proactive in repairing key roads and infrastructure. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to put a timeline on the remedial work required for the A591, and his response was that it was not a matter for Government. When local government is being cut to the bone, such shrugging of the shoulders simply will not wash. It is time to show some real leadership. As I said in the Chamber yesterday, the road needs to be open before Easter, as that is a critical time for the tourist economy, particularly for Keswick and the surrounding areas.

Another result of the floods was the profound impact on healthcare services in the county. A flooding emergency should never become a health emergency, with people unable to access the services on which they rely. Cobra should not be convened every time there is significant rainfall.

The West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven was not directly affected by flood waters, but the impact of the flooding on the Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle had profound effects on the services available to my constituents. Patients were not able to travel from the West Cumberland to Carlisle; doctors and nurses were not able to get to work; and the hospital in Carlisle was running on back-up generators, without staff, bedsheets and more. That proved, once and for all, the sheer folly of transferring services from the West Cumberland hospital to the Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle. Heavy rain in the Lake District should not mean that patients cannot access health services, and it should not lead international news bulletins.

In the wake of the flooding at the beginning of December, I called on the Government to create a dedicated Cumbrian infrastructure and resilience commission so that we could learn from the floods and put in place practical measures to improve defences, resilience and local infrastructure and the Government’s response to any future flooding, of which there will be more. I appreciate that since I made that call, many more communities across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been affected by flooding, but I would be grateful to the Minister if he undertook to write to me on this matter, because only by properly understanding, on a practical level, how and why the flooding occurred can we hope to defend ourselves better in the future.

The key issue at the heart of this debate is resources—the resources we need for flood defences, for improving community resilience and for rebuilding. It is unfathomable, therefore, that the Government are reluctant to apply for funding from the EU solidarity fund to help flood-stricken communities. International partners have contributed to an EU-wide fund to help communities hit by severe weather. The Government should commit to seeking these valuable resources from the EU fund, which was specifically set up to help flooded communities. The Government’s objective should be to help communities recover and to provide the resources they need as quickly as possible, and not to sacrifice those communities in order to save the Prime Minister’s face or assist with the internal management of the Conservative party.

Any support must reach those who need it quickly. It is all well and good announcing support, but until repairs actually start it is not much use. I hope the Minister will explain how the Government intend to get support to those who badly need it as soon as possible. My constituents have now experienced three “once in a lifetime” flooding events in the past 10 years. It will happen again, so complacency is not an option.

In Keswick and the surrounding areas, we need to look at dredging, fell-water management, bridge relocations, support for businesses, the Thirlmere reservoir and so much more. Nationally, we need comprehensively to change our approach towards flood defences, water management and community resilience.

Flooding

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have protected flood maintenance spending in real terms from the current level of £171 million. I am a great supporter of internal drainage boards and making sure that they are sufficiently empowered to do work. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for floods, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue further.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Following on from the question asked by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the Government make the reopening before Easter of the A591 a national priority? On the £500 million or £600 million that the county of Cumbria needs to repair the damage caused by flooding, will the right hon. Lady ensure that it is linked to the outstanding devolution settlement of Cumbrian local government?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have said, the A591 is a national priority. For the first time ever we have Highways England working on it to ensure that that happens as soon as possible.

Badger Cull

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

While I have the Floor, I am sure that colleagues across the House would like to congratulate pupils from West Lakes academy in my constituency on sending a balloon into space this morning—quite an achievement. It is called Project Space Eye if anyone would like to look it up.

As the Member of Parliament for England’s most remotely accessible constituency from Westminster, I am proud to represent many dozens of farmers. As I have said previously when debating this issue, I married into a dairy farming family and, as such, I have some understanding of the wide impact that bovine tuberculosis can have. We have not seen much of this so far, but I hope that when the House discusses these issues we can prevent ourselves from descending into some of the crude, crass misunderstandings, clichés and characterisations about urban England and rural England that do nobody any good whatsoever.

Communities throughout my constituency were devastated by the outbreaks of foot and mouth over the past decade and, as a result, we are all acutely aware of the impact that losing a significant number of livestock can have, not only on the economic viability of farms, but also with regard to emotional distress caused by enforced slaughter. Bovine TB is extremely serious, and effective measures should be taken to minimise the spread of the disease. However, as more and more results of the badger cull are brought to light, the less and less effective it is shown to be. The badger cull has been a failure by whichever yardstick we choose to measure it, whether by its efficacy in reducing bovine TB, by the cost to the taxpayer, or by the humaneness of the implementation.

Before the pilot culls took place, the number of cattle slaughtered from January to November 2013 was 30,220. That means that more than 4,600 fewer cattle were slaughtered because of bovine TB compared with the same period in 2012. The widely disputed effectiveness of the cull notwithstanding, other measures such as restrictions on cattle movement, tighter biosecurity and rigorous testing regimes have clearly had a great impact on reducing the need for compulsory slaughter. The pilot schemes were conducted on the basis that over six weeks, 70% of badgers would be culled. The original two pilot schemes failed in this regard. A freedom of information request in January revealed that in west Somerset just 360 badgers were killed by controlled shooting out of a population of more than 1,450, and in west Gloucestershire, 543 of about 2,350 badgers were killed. These numbers fall significantly below the 70% threshold. This has led to extensions of the culls, flying in the face of all sound scientific advice.

Professor Rosie Woodroffe, who was involved in the original randomised badger culling trials between 1998 and 2005, has said:

“It is not unreasonable to expect that as you prolong the cull and you prolong increased badger movement, you increase the detrimental effects.”

Those detrimental effects were incredibly serious and the result was that TB infections in badgers increased as movement increased, and the increase was exacerbated in areas where culling was prolonged. The badger cull was designed specifically to lower instances of bovine TB, but I am afraid that it is only this Government who could press ahead with a cull that is infecting more badgers.

Not only is this cull ineffective; it is cruel. The independent expert panel set up by the Government to assess the culls has confirmed that those carried out in Somerset and Gloucestershire were ineffective and failed on humanness. To be judged humane, no more than 5% of badgers would take longer than five minutes to die, but instead of meeting that one in 20 target, as many as one in five took longer than five minutes to die. With all that in mind, it is clear that controlled shooting badger culls are simply ineffective and it is appalling that the Government seek to carry on regardless.

The Government said the cull was needed to prevent bovine TB, which fell dramatically before the cull had even started. They said the cull would reduce TB infection rates, but more badgers are being infected owing to the prolonging of an ineffective cull. They said the cull would be humane, but significant numbers of badgers are being put through slow and painful deaths.

The contents of my postbag are a clear demonstration of how strongly my constituents feel about this badly implemented cull. The sheer amount of correspondence I have received so far on this issue has surpassed that received on many other issues, with the exception of the national health service, and not one constituent has expressed support for the cull. I am afraid it is time for the Government to go back to the drawing board and reflect the will of Members on both sides of the House.

Horsemeat

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Like many others, I think that the debate is hugely important, and with my background in the livestock industry I know what the concerns are there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the issue has come to the fore—and we are pleased that it has—is the improved testing in Ireland, which is, essentially, where the problem arose? We should congratulate the Irish Government on raising the bar for testing. It would be encouraging if testing of that standard could happen in as many countries as possible, including ours.

[Mr Reed]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the standards of testing in Ireland seem to be admirable, and we should replicate that in the UK.

In summary, it is time for the Government to review the whole system and take urgent action to restore consumer confidence in the meat products that we buy and eat, for the benefit of consumers, retailers and the food industry in the United Kingdom.

Badger Cull

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying how much I regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place? I regret even more the fact that he left the Chamber chuntering into the microphone that he had had enough of this debate.

I should declare some interests at the outset: I am the proud Member of Parliament for England’s most remotely accessible constituency from Westminster; I am married into a dairy farming family; and I am proud to represent scores of farmers. I have not seen for a long time as big a mailbag as has come in against this proposed cull. Today’s debate will take many forms and touch on many issues. In many ways, the Government are to blame for that, because this should have always been and should always be a scientific debate. There is no doubt that it should be an environmental debate and a debate about animal welfare, but those debates should always be based on science if they are to carry the weight and meaning that we want them to.

Before I go through the scientific evidence, I wish to pay tribute to all the organisations that have argued against what is clearly a scientifically flawed set of proposals used to support a cull. I also pay tribute to those figures with a high public profile who have used that to forward the aims of this cause. We live in an era characterised by a rampant, feckless celebrity culture that has begun to disfigure our society, where infamy, rather than fame found through any positively worthwhile achievements, leads to instant riches and celebrity status. This has led to the creation of a wealthy, C-list zombie class who do not believe they are subject to the laws of this country. So I applaud those who have used their profile for a cause that is not self-serving, lucrative or glamorous. They deserve our respect; they have rocked this Government.

The science is clear, and Lord Krebs has left no doubt on the efficacy of the proposed cull and its ability to address the problem of bovine TB. He has rightly said that

“'bovine TB is a serious problem, and it deserves serious science to underpin policy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

He has also pointed out that the proposed cull will result, after nine years, in 84% of the problem still remaining in place. That means that there will be a 16% reduction in the trend increase of bovine TB, and so, after nine years, there will still be more bovine TB around than there was at the beginning. It could not be clearer that this proposed cull simply will not work.

DEFRA’s own figures show that fewer cattle have been slaughtered because of bovine TB each year from 2008 to 2011, so it is clear that the Government are cherry-picking data in an attempt to support a flawed case. The question must be asked: why? The answer is really hard to fathom. In one respect, I think it is a genuinely confused attempt to help. One myth I would like to dispel is that this is being done at the behest of the National Farmers Union. We have all noticed the Government’s nudges and winks over recent weeks in an attempt to blame the NFU for the proposal, but that simply will not wash. The NFU is an important, effective organisation that is duty-bound to represent the many disparate interests of farms and farmers of very different sorts. Clearly, there is more than one voice of farmers on the issue of bovine TB and the cull.

Farmers want solutions to bovine TB, as we all do. My constituency will never forget the devastating consequences of foot and mouth disease. It was not just an animal welfare disaster and an economic catastrophe; it was a very real human tragedy, as lives were ruined and generations of work were destroyed. Nothing like that must ever be allowed to happen again, so on the issue of bovine TB farmers are well within their rights to look at the Government and wonder why they have been led down the garden path and sold a false prospectus. There can be no doubt that they have been, and they are sick to death of the goalposts for ever moving as the Government continue to drop the ball. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed cull was a sop from a shambolic Government—the political equivalent of magic beans. This shambles is not the fault of farmers and it is not the fault of the NFU.

I am sick and tired of redundant notions of rurality running riot across this House and within all political parties. In some parts of this House, rural areas are seen in the mind’s eye as consisting of corpulent farmers chewing a blade of grass and resting on a gate post; they are seen as simply a playground for those who have wealth and have left urban areas to gentrify rural areas with large homes and Range Rovers. Those who think that never see the young farmer struggling to stay afloat, and rarely consider what it means for people to have literally no access to public transport and, as a result, to schools, hospitals and other services, which their taxes pay for just as much as anyone else’s. Those who think that never see the struggling villages, which are fighting every day to stay alive and have never known affluence, or the pensioners, parents and children who occupy this forgotten country. That must change. As the economic squeeze worsens, as the public sector and the state retreat further, and as areas of market failure become ever more prominent, all of us need to pay urgent attention to the plight of ordinary people in this forgotten England, because they need our help and they have little or no interest in the colour of our respective rosettes. So I commend those Government Members who will support today’s motion.

This Government have done little or nothing for the people I am talking about, and show no signs of doing so. The cull was also a sop based on a redundant and clichéd misconception of farmers and rural life, which can now be seen through. That, in part, has led to farmers receiving anonymous threats about what will happen to them and their property if a cull takes place. That is a despicable state of affairs, and I hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government in general will join me in urging that the full weight of the law be brought against the people who have made those threats.

For the sake of bovine welfare, for the sake of badger conservation, for the sake of rural businesses and the rural economy, which, in so many ways, relies upon dairy farming, and for the sake of everyone in this House, on either side, who cares about rural England, the Government should urgently begin bringing forward sensible proposals to tackle bovine TB, not pointless, scientifically disproven, dog-whistle policies.

Agricultural Wages Board

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

My apologies for being late. I call Mr Jamie Reed to speak.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Caton, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time. I am very grateful to have been granted a debate on this important issue, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.

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

On a point of order, Mr Caton. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. Just for the convenience of the House, I think that it is important to note that I have released a written ministerial statement on this subject today, opening a consultation. That being the case, and given that the statement cannot be released until 9.30 am and hon. Members will obviously be in Westminster Hall today and unable to get to the Library to see a copy, I have arranged for them to have a copy of the written ministerial statement. I can provide further copies if other Members have need of one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that point is not about the statement, and therefore it is not a point of order. I call Jamie Reed.

[Mr Reed]

Such excitement so early on. I think that it can only be the new working hours unsettling us all. However, there will be ample time to discuss all the issues that Members wish to raise.

The Agricultural Wages Board, in one form or another, has provided good wages, good working conditions and good lives to farm workers since 1924. Before I continue, I must thank the Minister for providing early sight of the written ministerial statement today, before we began proceedings. I appreciate that courtesy.

I want to touch on three issues in my speech today. First, the AWB allows farmers to focus on farming. They do not have to be employment specialists and they have no need to negotiate with their work force over pay and conditions. Secondly, the AWB is the most effective way of ensuring that regional part-time, young and even full-time employees in the farming industry are not exploited. Without the protection of the board, they will be vulnerable to lower pay and worse conditions. Thirdly and finally, the AWB is so much more than a body for setting wages and conditions. On one level, it ensures that a shepherd has the funds to look after their most valuable asset, which of course is sheepdogs; that tenant farmers have secure homes to live in; that farm workers have good overtime and night work rates, fair stand-by allowances and sick pay; and that agricultural workers of all types are provided with suitable bereavement leave and holiday entitlements.

The Government’s planned abolition of the AWB puts all of that at risk. I welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to his new post of farming Minister. I hope that he can bring an appreciation of the farming industry and its workers to this Government. In my view, that appreciation has been significantly lacking for too long.

This is not the first time that the Tories have attempted to abolish the AWB. Baroness Thatcher attempted to abolish it, but she changed her mind when she realised that it was a vital organisation for farmers and farm workers. Sadly and in some ways inexplicably, when I look at the Minister, this Government are proposing to abolish an organisation that even Margaret did not want to abolish.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I remind my hon. Friend that the very arguments that I suspect many people in Westminster Hall today will be deploying in defence of the AWB are the same arguments that persuaded Margaret Thatcher not to abolish it, and that were made by her own Back Benchers at the time.

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely the case that there was overwhelming opposition to the proposal of the then Thatcher Government to abolish the AWB. Thankfully, the arguments against abolishing the AWB were listened to then, and common sense prevailed. Sadly, like much of what this Government are trying to achieve, whether that is the dismantling of the NHS or the destruction of local government, the abolition of the AWB is unfinished Thatcherite business, as my hon. Friend has just implied.

In a report for the Low Pay Commission in December 2011, Incomes Data Services argued that

“the agricultural sector is distinct from other sectors in that it is comprised of small employment units but with the additional feature of seasonal or casual workers”.

The AWB may indeed be an anomaly in our economy, but the agricultural sector is so different from other sectors of our economy that it is a necessary anomaly. Small farmers, who make up the majority of the industry, do not have the time, the expertise or, frankly, the funds to negotiate with their workers time and time again in what is an increasingly pressurised working environment.

The standards of pay and conditions set by the AWB enable farmers to focus on running their businesses and producing the products that we all need—increasingly so, as this year’s poor harvest demonstrates in many ways. In abolishing the AWB, the Government are not freeing farms from unnecessary bureaucracy. Instead, they are making the lives of small farmers more difficult and creating an even more bureaucratic working environment than the one that currently exists. That is the last thing that small farmers could possibly need. Instead of having to deal only with the AWB, in the future farmers will need to work with myriad different organisations, each one governing a different area of employment regulation and each, in turn, exposing every small farm business to new and different liabilities and complexities.

In their report calling for the retention of the AWB, the Welsh Government correctly noted that if the board is abolished

“pay bargaining would become instantly fragmented”.

It is important to note that, although the leadership of the National Farmers Union backs the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, it might not, on this occasion, be speaking for every small farmer in England, or Britain—it is certainly not speaking for those in Wales. I greatly respect the NFU and its leadership, and have very good relationships with NFU leaders in my constituency who, for the most part, skilfully, adeptly and effectively represent their members’ interests, but I think that they have got it wrong on this one.

The farming union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales and many small farmers across the UK want to retain the Agricultural Wages Board. The Government claim to be on the side of farmers, but on this issue they are making farmers’ lives much more difficult, making their businesses much harder to run, and doing the exact opposite of what the Government should be doing—at all times but particularly in these straitened times—which is supporting our nation’s farmers and making it easier for their businesses to survive and grow.

The situation profoundly affects my constituency and my home county. Across the north of England there are 28,180 agricultural workers, with 12,260 in the north-west, 3,300 in Cumbria—my home county—and almost 600 in my constituency. Copeland is the constituency that is most dependent on public spending in England. It is also the English constituency that is hardest to reach from Westminster—yes, there is a link—and more than 50% of the local economy is based on public spending.

Throughout my time in this House, I have sought to rebalance my local economy through the growth of our local private sector, but it is difficult to do that, and is becoming more so. At a time when the majority of public spending cuts are yet to bite—perhaps the Minister could tell us if he supports the additional £10 billion cuts that the Chancellor has announced—and when the budgets and services of local authorities in my area are being decimated, the removal of a body that helps small businesses to do business and maintains minimum workplace standards and minimal rates of pay surely cannot be right. This is a detached policy, from an increasingly detached Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. On what is likely to be lost, there is also the unique problem that agricultural workers are exceptionally isolated in terms of their negotiating and bargaining power. On the abolition, and the consultation that has been announced today, does the hon. Gentleman not share my disappointment? We should not be obsessed with organisational structure—I am not going to die in a ditch defending the existence of the Agricultural Wages Board—but the board provides protections, and without it the only safety net that agricultural workers will be left with is the national minimum wage. A whole strand of negotiations is available through the existing regulations.

[Mr Reed]

I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I must point out that I did my best for his economy over the summer when I holidayed in his area, but I am afraid that I did not write to him to let him know of my visit and I hope that that is forgivable. His points are absolutely correct.

In the written ministerial statement published this morning, it is claimed that the abolition of the AWB will help to achieve

“the Government’s objective of harmonising and simplifying employment law, and removing regulatory burdens from businesses”.

It goes on to say that it will

“contribute significantly to the Government’s programme of public body reform and support the Government’s growth agenda”,

but I think that the effect will be almost the opposite of what is intended. It is incredible and inexplicable that the analysis that is so simple and obvious for people who live in rural communities has not been brought to bear on what the Government aim to achieve.

Some 38% of all agricultural workers in England are seasonal or part-time employees—in Wales the figure is 56%—and statutory protections are woefully lacking. It is due only to the Agricultural Wages Board that seasonal and part-time farm workers enjoy the same rights as full-time workers. Without the board, young employees will have no set rates of pay, which will open them up to lower pay. Without the board, seasonal workers will not have secure contracts, which will open them up to exploitation. How often do we see stories of exploitation? Even now that we have the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, we still see egregious examples of exploitation in the agricultural industry and others around the country. How much easier are we about to make it for future incidents to occur?

Without the Agricultural Wages Board, part-time workers will not be guaranteed rest breaks, which will open them up to worsening conditions. In abolishing the board, the Government are giving bad employers the opportunity to cut pay and worsen conditions in a race to the bottom, and in whose interests is that? In the Low Pay Commission’s 2012 report, it was noted that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board could lead to an increase in rural poverty. Rural areas such as the eastern coast—my own constituency and across Cumbria—parts of Wales and rural areas of the south coast are already among the most deprived in the country. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, the Government—this Tory-led Government—are doing what most people already feared they would do: making life harder for the poorest.

I know that the Government and the National Farmers Union will say that farmers are not planning to reduce wages and conditions, and I have always rejected—and always will—the lazy, ignorant stereotyping of many in this House when it comes to understanding farmers and farming, but if this year’s dairy crisis has proved anything it is that farmers will continue to face downward pressures on farm-gate prices. Pay and conditions can be a soft target, even for the best farmers, when faced with rising cost pressures, such as the ones we saw this summer. The proposed abolition is bad for farmers—it will make their lives more difficult—and it is bad for employees, as it will make their jobs, pay and working conditions much less secure.

In addition, the AWB ensures housing for 30% of farm workers, provides bereavement payments and leave, ensures that new parents get child payments, gives suitable rest breaks for hard-working farm employees and provides a host of other employment benefits that as a result of abolition will be lost or greatly reduced. In his conference speech only last week, the Prime Minister said that his Government would always support those who worked hard. There are few people who work harder than farm employees; they work long hours, and many of them do literally back-breaking labour day in, day out, all of it to make products we all need and enjoy each and every day of our lives. Yet it appears that the Government insist on making their lives more difficult, reducing their protections and changing the agricultural industry from one often characterised by good working relationships to one in which wage negotiations are fragmented, and jobs, pay and conditions are no longer secure. After abolition, farmers who have for generations lived in secure homes will face possible eviction, and hard-working people will lose payments that make their lives just a little easier, as the economy gets worse and worse.

The Government’s decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board has not been followed by the Scottish or Northern Irish Governments, and the Welsh Government want to retain the board in Wales. Once again, it appears that this Government are pursuing a path of action with which very few people agree, and even fewer want to see. Even the NFU cannot claim to be speaking for every small farmer. Indeed, evidence suggests that only the biggest of farmers agree with the action; smaller farmers and farm workers do not want to see the AWB abolished. The board must be retained; it is not in the interests of farm employees, of farmers, of the agricultural industry, or of rural communities and economies to abolish it.

[Andrew George]

On my point about an obsession with organisational structure, I generally agree with the broad thrust of the Government’s approach, which is to abolish or amalgamate as many quangos as possible. We should always be bearing down on the proliferation of Government agencies and quangos. The important regulations and the six grades that are available, and the other protections for agricultural workers, could be transferred from the AWB to an existing body such as the Low Pay Commission. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should perhaps not be obsessed with the board itself but look at ways in which the regulations could be overseen or protected by an existing Government agency?

[Mr Reed]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I understand the point he tries to make. The issue, however, is whether the abolition meets the Government’s own criteria? Does it pass the Government’s own test, and will it cost more to undertake the functions that the hon. Gentleman outlines within other bodies than to retain the Agricultural Wages Board? Let us see the evidence—that is my request to the Government.

Finally, and in a way leading on from that intervention, in the event of abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, what checks will the Government introduce to ensure that wage levels and working conditions do not collapse? How will the checks be undertaken, and how will they be paid for? Will the Government undertake an economic impact assessment of how the abolition will affect each English region, particularly those that depend heavily on public spending? If so, will the Minister undertake to publish such an assessment, and if not, can he tell us why not? I look forward to his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I fully appreciate that point.

In all debates on this matter, I have striven, in my position as a shadow Minister, to speak not only for England, but for other parts of the UK in which what is happening with the AWB is mirrored or contradicted. I want to ask the Minister how negotiations are going with Wales. How are they progressing, or not progressing? The Welsh Assembly Government, the Farmers Union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales, Unite the Union, GMB and others have lined up alongside individual farmers to demand the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales. To that effect, an excellent debate, which I mentioned earlier, was held last week, spearheaded by Mick Antoniw, the Assembly Member for Pontypridd, who is a brilliant advocate for all workers, including agricultural workers. The only dissenting voice in the whole of that debate was not a Liberal Democrat or a Plaid Cymru Member; it was a Conservative, who had been sent out as a token to speak against the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales.

[Mr Reed]

Will my hon. Friend venture to suggest why no Conservative Member is present for the debate this morning?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I genuinely cannot. We have heard the hon. Member for St Ives and the Minister will speak for the Government. The contribution made by the hon. Member for Strangford is welcome, as we should be having that sort of debate, but the complete absence of any Conservative voice strikes me as staggering. Even if Conservative Members wanted to argue against our position, they should come and do so. However, perhaps low-paid agricultural workers somehow disappear below the radar. When we have had debates in Westminster Hall on the common agricultural policy, these Benches have been full of Members from all parties. Here, we are speaking about low-paid agricultural workers, but in the absence of any Conservatives to defend themselves, I will hold back my comments.

Will the Minister update us directly on discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government? I ask him because rumours have been circulating all summer that the discussions are in deadlock and have been like that for some time, and that DEFRA was perhaps attempting to refuse to respect the current constitutional settlement for Wales. Worse still, it has been suggested that the UK Government—the Government of whom he is a Minister—will try to undermine the Welsh Assembly by seeking to circumvent the constitutional settlement and the need for consent, and that they would try to devise a way to avoid the necessity of full and frank engagement with democratically elected Welsh Government Ministers.

This is a technical matter of legislative competence, but it is also a matter of respect for the Welsh Government and for the people of Wales. Let me explain to the Minister why I firmly believe that that must be the case. The proposal to abolish the AWB is made under section 1 of the Public Bodies Act 2011. Section 9 of that Act requires the consent of the National Assembly for Wales when exercising the power under section 1 on any matter that would fall within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Government can therefore choose to retain an agricultural wages board for Wales if they consider that such a decision would benefit the agricultural industry in Wales, in accordance with their devolved responsibilities under schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. That screams out to me that the Welsh Assembly Government must be a full party to this process and that there should be no attempt to find some parliamentary procedure or back-corridor operation to circumvent full and frank discussion on the impact of the AWB’s abolition in Wales.

The view of Wales—the Welsh people and the Welsh farming community—is clear, and it needs to be debated and voted on. The Welsh Government must have their consent sought. That final point is vital in terms of respect for the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales, and with it, I close my remarks. I hope that the Minister will assure us that what I have described is not happening and that the wider functions of the Agricultural Wages Board, beyond simply low-pay protection, will be protected in whatever thoughts and proposals he brings forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into commenting on other Departments’ areas of responsibility. I am dealing with what falls within my ministerial responsibilities, and as I have indicated to hon. Members, we gave a commitment to consult on the board’s future. The written ministerial statement that I have issued today, and made sure that Members had before them, informs the House of the launch of the public consultation on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, as well as the related 15 regional agricultural wages committees and 16 regional agricultural dwelling house advisory committees in England. The hon. Member for Ogmore picked up on the fact that my written ministerial statement describes the agricultural wages committees as “now largely redundant”. It does so because they are now largely redundant. I hope that he will look carefully at exactly what they do.

The point that underlies all this is that, in the absence of the Agricultural Wages Board, agricultural workers will be protected by the national minimum wage and working time regulations. I accept entirely what hon. Members have said—that that is not the sum total of the Agricultural Wages Board regime. It is not simply a safety net underneath the least well-paid workers. I shall come on to the other aspects, but that is certainly an important part of why it was set up in the first place. It was set up at a time when people working in rural areas were the least well-paid of the least well-paid and had very few protections. It was right, at the time, to give that protection. The question is whether it is still right to have that arrangement in this unique sector of employment when in other areas it has been abolished.

The hon. Member for Copeland talked about Baroness Thatcher’s Government removing a raft of wages boards, and that is correct—they did remove them—but surely he is not suggesting that that was necessarily a bad thing. I am not trying to reduce this debate to the absurd, because I know that there are genuine and important issues, but did he think that the Aerated Waters Wages Council, the Coffin Furniture and Cerement-making Wages Council, the Flax and Hemp Wages Council or the Ostrich and Fancy Feather and the Artificial Flower Wages Council really had a place in the 1990s?

[Mr Reed]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

He did?

[Mr Reed]

In the same way that the Minister wisely refuses to speak outside the vires of his Department, he cannot tempt me to say anything good about Baroness Thatcher’s Government.

[Mr Heath]

In that case, I shall not tempt the hon. Gentleman further down that road, but the reason why I raised those other, perhaps flippant cases—I do not think that anyone would seriously suggest that those councils were relevant now—is that other wages councils that were abolished at the time had an effect on industries that would certainly be described as current industries and that are not entirely dissimilar to agriculture. I am thinking of the Licensed Non-residential Establishment Wages Council, the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Council and the Hairdressing Undertakings Wages Council. Those were dealing with business that was often carried out by small enterprises, where many of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have advanced today would have applied and where I do not think that a disbenefit from the abolition has been apparent in terms of comparative performance with other areas of industry. It is important that we recognise that.

We are now engaging in a consultation that will allow stakeholders and interested parties the opportunity to make their views known on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board before we make a final decision. I want to make it clear—because I genuinely think that this is the case—that the aim of the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is to secure the prosperity of the agricultural industry for the future by encouraging growth and employment. I think that it will do that. I think that it will benefit all those who work in the industry, both employers and workers, as well as the wider rural economy.

Flood and Water Management

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has been typically forthright and diligent in producing an important and thorough report. This is a crucial discussion, and one of fundamental importance to many aspects of communities throughout the country and to our country’s social, environmental and economic future. I pay tribute to the Chair and other Committee members for their work in producing the report.

The report provides the basis for a great deal of further work by both Parliament and Government. I suspect that important as the report is, this is not the last time that the Committee will return to the issue in such detail. I also suspect that we will have to wait for the long-delayed water White Paper, which is due to be published in December, before we can see comprehensively what the Government intend to do in response to the issues raised by the Committee. I appreciate that the Minister has plenty of questions to answer, so I will be as brief as possible. My first question is this: can he give us a categorical assurance that the White Paper will be published in December this year, and that it has not slipped any further?

The report raises a series of vital issues requiring rapid policy responses beginning with flood management, particularly flood insurance, which many Members have mentioned. Changes to flood insurance for homes and businesses will take effect in July 2013, bringing to an end the statement of principles agreed between the last Government and the Association of British Insurers, acting on behalf of the insurance industry, in 2008. The statement of principles placed clear obligations on Government and industry alike, the most important being the maintenance of investment by Government in flood defences. Following the change of Government, as has been discussed, that has not happened—flood defence spending has been cut by 27%. Although I do not believe that the report under discussion lends itself to some of the more partisan comments that we have heard, I urge those Government Members who have made the point about spending cuts not to pretend that they are not responsible for those cuts. Neither should they pretend to their constituents that they are not their responsibility. The Government acknowledge the 27% cut.

[Neil Parish]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I am not yet a Minister, but I am happy to give way.

[Neil Parish]

I apologise—I meant to say the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that we are responsible for the cuts, but will he also make the point that he and his party were responsible for the huge deficit that we inherited?

[Mr Reed]

I would love to debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman morning, noon and night.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Main. I fear that I would have strayed for some considerable length.

The report highlights a series of concerns surrounding the reduction in funding available for flood defences. It states that

“to maintain the current level of protection in the face of increasing flood risks requires increased investment and the significant CSR cuts will increase concerns that funding on flood defences remains inadequate.”

It goes on to say that

“it is by no means certain that any shortfall in public funding can yet be made up by private contributions. Ministers must spell out how the Government’s aim of focussing public funding on those communities at greatest risk who are least able to protect themselves will be achieved in practice.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the Committee. It now behoves the Government to end this ambiguity, because it is damaging and has dragged on for far too long.

I also urge the Government to understand the detailed effects of their policy as matters stand. The NFU has made a compelling argument in that regard. It notes, with typical tenacity:

“The reality is that regions containing a significant conurbation of housing and business development i.e. a city will create a distortion in the allocation of national flood risk funding. This means that many rural areas...will be likely to suffer a steep decline in flood risk investment as a result of this distorting effect of policy. We believe rural areas within regions will therefore have difficulty in obtaining national funding for new flood risk management schemes.”

The NFU is entirely right and I thank it for the attention it has given the issues and for representing the interests of its members and, more broadly, the more rural elements of our country in a typically forthright and effective manner.

Do the Government accept the analysis that their funding criteria for flood management distort funding away from flood defence schemes in rural areas? If the Minister does not accept that analysis, what is the basis for his contrary view?

The Government maintain that reduced flood defence spending can still safeguard 145,000 properties over the duration of this Parliament. Inevitably, that will mean a greater concentration of available moneys in more densely populated areas in order to achieve greater, and arguably quicker, economies of scale. For less densely populated areas, this represents a gathering storm—less flood defence investment, with potentially more expensive or difficult to obtain insurance cover and greatly inflated excess payments—which could lead to entire communities becoming blighted. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of that problem.

What specific discussions have the Government held with the insurance industry regarding the effects on the costs and availability of flood insurance in rural areas as a result of this policy change? Have the Government undertaken any assessment of how these policy changes will affect land and property values in rural areas? If so, has the logical modelling been done with regard to how such a policy change will affect not only businesses in these areas, but the cost to their public services?

With regard to the farming industry, surely modelling work has been undertaken on the impacts of different flood management models in rural areas and the consequences of that for agricultural land and food security. Surely the necessary work with regard to these issues has been done. If not, will the Minister explain why? If the work has been done and the answer is yes, will he undertake to make this work available to the public and to colleagues? If the work has not been undertaken, I fear that the Government’s approach to these issues cannot be described as holistic and will inevitably invite failure.

We need, as has been said, a broad and lasting consensus on the policy measures necessary to achieve a fair insurance system whereby flood insurance is available to everybody at affordable rates. If as a country we fail to meet the serious challenges presented by the changing flood insurance landscape, that will result in profound social effects. Governments, of whichever colour, cannot outsource their accountability in this area. It is not fair and it does not bode well for effective, lasting policy if it is left purely to the insurance industry. With one in six homes and businesses in England and Wales at significant risk of flooding, this is without doubt one of the biggest social and economic policy challenges facing the country.

Effective policy implementation will require the substantial buy-in of major stakeholders in this policy field—not just the insurance industry, but the water industry—whose co-operation is pivotal in identifying and implementing effective policy solutions. The companies involved in our water industry could also be pivotal in helping us to address significant parts of the flood policy challenge. I have spoken with the industry and it is clear that there is huge and, in many ways, unrealised potential locked within it that is both prepared and able to help us improve flood management policy. What work has the Minister’s Department done in that regard, and has any work been done on incentivising soft or natural water and flood management schemes to be undertaken by water companies, as opposed to hard, engineered schemes?

Does the Minister believe that that approach would be aided or hindered by further disaggregation of the water industry and by increased competition? We are all aware of the benefits of competition, but we must also be alive to the potential disbenefits of increased competition. Clearly, asset maintenance and investment in new assets in the water industry are a critical part of the economic base of that industry. It is also vital in relation to the practicalities of flood and water management. Does the Minister share my concern that the disruption of the market in the UK could disincentivise investments such as these and thus hinder more effective flood and water management schemes?

The Government cannot and must not believe that they can extricate themselves from this policy area. Paradoxically, the cut in flood defence spending may yet necessitate more involvement, more investment and more legislation from Government, in the shape of the Bellwin scheme and other schemes, and more rather than less involvement and expenditure in the future.

I am sure that we are all aware—perhaps members of the EFRA Committee are more aware of this than others—that the water industry is undergoing a period of marked uncertainty as it continues to deal with a badly structured privatisation, regulatory uncertainty, an increased call for its involvement in social policy, global economic uncertainty, and what I think we can broadly agree is increased customer dissatisfaction. The industry is one of the most strategically sensitive in the UK and any significant policy changes, irrespective of the benefits, are likely to incur some cost to the taxpayer either directly or indirectly through contributions to the Exchequer, or directly through utility bills.

Let us be under no illusion that water management legislation is difficult. We all accept that and understand that effective water management legislation requires a thriving water industry. The water industry now faces three areas of challenge, which are perhaps best understood in three separate chunks: the consumer, the environment and impending regulatory change.

First, on the consumer, customers increasingly demand lower bills or more stable charges and, in addition, expect increased investments from utility companies in flood prevention and water management. The existence of water poverty is real and must be addressed through social tariffs or other means. Secondly, on the environment, effective water management cannot just be about consumers and shareholders. It must be about environmental protection, which, as we are all aware, is not cost-free. I urge the Government to respond in detail to the concerns raised by WWF, particularly those in relation to water abstraction. Thirdly, on regulation of the water industry, Ofwat, as colleagues have touched upon, faces major changes. The industry is a major tax contributor, a wealth creator and a significant employer, yet the consequences of the privatisation as it has been structured—which increase environmental responsibilities and the role of the industry in other social policy areas, such as flood defence, water poverty alleviation and other potential environmental remediation—are potentially massive.

The Committee Chairman is absolutely right to suggest that the industry is facing its biggest challenge for decades—there is no doubt about that. Let us make it clear that these drivers offer scope for major policy contradictions as, although they are discrete, each specific area impacts upon the other. So a credible policy must have the buy-in and involvement of the water industry at a very high level. There is a willingness from the industry to do that. Like all major industries, the water industry seeks as far as is practicable, a core political consensus from us in this room and from us in this Parliament, so that it can plan long-term investments with certainty. Additionally, the industry recognises and seemingly accepts the inescapable social and environmental obligations that are upon it.

Our task is to identify those areas of synergy that will bring together consumer benefit, social and environmental improvement, and economic stability. That should inform our policy approach and I hope it is writ large throughout the White Paper when it appears. There are many more matters raised by the report in need of discussion, but they cannot all be mentioned today. The issues have had a significant airing and have largely been brought to the Minister’s attention in a detailed way. I trust that he will answer the questions that have been raised not only by me but by colleagues. If not, I trust that he will give us some detailed written answers as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I think there is, and I will tell my hon. Friend why. I can only speak about this in generalities. My hon. Friend must forgive me if, in doing so, I make it harder for him to apply this, in his mind, across certain communities. We all know that in certain communities, there is a terrific local capacity to take these problems head on. I have communities in which hydrologists live. I have communities that have been flooded where there are water engineers. I have communities flooded where there are people with enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. We have seen communities all around the country with the capacity to put together a partnership funding stream that can work overnight, almost, in terms of flooding schemes. There are other communities where there is not that capacity. That is not to diminish the people who live there at all; they just do not have that capacity. We have to have a system that is mindful that some communities need more help than others.

[Mr Reed]

On that point, may I put on the record the fact that all of us acknowledge that there is still—I know that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) would not want to give the opposite impression, far from it—real deprivation in rural England and Wales as well?

[Richard Benyon]

Of course I acknowledge that; I was coming on to talk about it. Possibly through the unguarded way in which I was talking about affordability in the south-west, I may have—heaven forbid—given the impression that I thought that people in the south-west were all millionaires. Of course I do not think that. I am fully aware of the profile of rural life across the south-west and across other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there is deprivation in rural areas as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

If it is illegal, it is important that we take legal sanctions to prevent it. Whenever possible, we want to see our own waste industry growing. At present it is projected to grow at 4% per annum, and there is no lack of ambition in the industry to deal more effectively with all forms of waste that we can treat in this country.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

The lack of ambition belongs entirely to the Secretary of State. The Sunday Times called the Government’s waste review a “sloppy, flyblown mess” hamstrung by Tory dogma. The Welsh Government have adopted a 70% recycling rate, which will create 50,000 new jobs by 2025, yet in England this Government have abandoned recycling targets. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she has scrapped recycling targets for England? Will she also publish an assessment of how many English jobs will not now be created, and how much investment in the waste industry will not now be made, as a result of her decision?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a gross distortion of our waste review. The hon. Gentleman should not rely on newspapers to give him a guide to what is in it; he should take the trouble to read the real thing. Have I not just said that we expect the waste industry to grow by 4% per annum? We have not scrapped recycling targets; we are committed to EU targets for recycling. In addition, we have more ambition with regard to landfill, which exceeds the ambition of the previous Government and involves proposals not to bury metal and wood in landfill.

Waste Review

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the waste review in England.

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

Apropos of the written ministerial statement listed on today’s Order Paper, I have laid in the Library copies of the waste review, to which we received 1,800 responses.

The Government’s waste review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. We want to make it easier for people to do the right thing and recycle more, so today’s review is good news for householders, businesses, councils and industry.

We will make it easier for people to recycle, and we will tackle measures introduced by the previous Government that encouraged councils specifically to cut the scope of collections. We will remove the criminal sanctions applying to householders, so that households are not menaced for simple mistakes. We also propose to introduce a “harm to local amenity” test to tackle “neighbours from hell”, ensuring that enforcement is targeted at those who deliberately and persistently break the law.

The review is good for business. We are abolishing landfill allowance trading schemes, because they create a perverse incentive for local authorities not to collect waste from business. We are giving them certainty about landfill tax; the escalator will move annually by £8 to a floor of £80 by 2015. We are announcing a voluntary agreement so that small and medium-sized enterprises can better access recycling services. We are providing business with a clear signal that energy from waste will be a key technology in the future.

Today’s review is good for the environment. We will start consulting on restricting wood waste from landfill and go on to review the feasibility of bans on metal, textiles and biodegradable waste. We shall also consult on increased recycling targets, to 2017, for packaging waste.

The review changes the way we look at waste by unlocking the economic opportunities for transforming waste into resource. We have set out a clear direction for cutting landfill, preventing waste and increasing recycling.

[Mr Reed]

That is barely credible, and it is no wonder that DEFRA is rapidly being seen as the equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. As usual, today’s announcement was spun to the media before it was laid before Parliament. Among the spin was yet another broken promise, this time on weekly bin collections. The Secretaries of State for both DEFRA and Communities and Local Government spent their time in opposition promising the public that weekly bin collections would be introduced, but today we discover that this is not the case. Before the election the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said, to much acclaim from his own party:

“It’s a basic right”—

I emphasise the words “a basic right”—

“for every English man and woman to be able to put the remnants of their chicken tikka masala in their bin without having to wait a fortnight for it to be collected.”

Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why the Government’s position has changed. Is she happy that the waste review contains no recycling targets at all for England, and that the UK’s recycling commitments under the European Union’s waste framework directive will therefore be met on the backs of recycling targets in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Is that right?

Will the right hon. Lady also tell us why she chose, on becoming Secretary of State, to abandon the Labour Government’s consultation on stopping wood going to landfill, only to waste a year and today reintroduce it? Instead of taking the chance to boost recycling, reduce waste and create jobs, the Government have abandoned Labour’s target of moving to a zero waste Britain. Under the previous Government recycling increased from 10% to 40%, but there is still more to do.

Today’s announcement fails to establish a framework for the green growth that the country needs and through which thousands of green jobs could be created. The waste review is a huge missed opportunity that looks set to do little for our environment or our economy. The Secretary of State should explain why it took so long and looks set to deliver so little.

[Mrs Spelman]

First, I wish to make it clear that the written ministerial statement was available to Members before I spoke to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Of course the Government will work with all parties to increase recycling rates, but the recycling target is a European one of reducing waste by 50% by 2020. I am confident that we are on target. This is a devolved matter for the other nations.

It is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition, who had 13 years to get to grips with landfill. They could, if they had so wanted, have got on and banned wood, materials, textiles and metals. I fear that the Opposition are still in denial about the dreadful economic legacy that they left to the Government.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about green growth. I have just spoken to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and shared with them the fact that we estimate that there will be a growth of 3% or 4% per annum in green jobs through the waste industry because of the positive framework that we are setting out to help people do what they want to do—the right thing: waste less and recycle more.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Jamie Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. It is evident that he speaks for thousands of people up and down the country. We have heard from Members from various parties in support of a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. I thank them for showing interest, attending this debate and making such a strong case, which is valuable.

Members’ support reflects the views of the country at large. As we have heard, Labour’s public consultation last year found that close to 95% of the public want a ban. More than 25,000 people have signed The Independent petition calling for one, and every one of us will have had constituents write to us to support taking that strong, simple, pragmatic, clear and logical action.

The Minister’s answer to those concerned individuals—I am sure that he will regret it—was:

“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 499.]

How disappointing.

From the moment when this Government took office, their record on the issue has been weak and ineffective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has said, proposals were in the red box of the previous Government’s animal welfare Minister, ready to go after the election, so the work and heavy lifting have been done, but for more than a year after the end of the consultation, the Government have dithered and delayed in the trademark fashion of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They suggested in answers to Members that they were carefully deliberating, but a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) confirmed that they had not held a single meeting with animal welfare groups or circus representatives since July last year.

The process went on. Finally, in April, the Secretary of State leaked to the Sunday Express that she would be introducing a ban. It appeared that the Government had at last listened to the public and to common sense, and Members from all parties welcomed the news. Unfortunately, as the public are beginning to realise, we made the mistake of thinking that this Government do what they say they will do.

A month later, in another answer, repeated in oral questions and in a written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government could not implement a ban due to an ongoing case in which the Austrian Government had been taken to court over a breach of the EU services directive. Wrong again; there is no ongoing case against the Austrian Government’s ban on wild animals in circuses. That has been confirmed by the Austrian constitutional court, the European Court of Justice and the European Circus Association.

Will the Minister apologise for misleading the House? I hope that he will take this opportunity to do so, but I doubt it. The hasty statement rushed out by the Secretary of State said that she

“would like to avoid any misunderstanding”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 27WS.]

and pointed out that the Government had got their information from a European Circus Association press release. That Government policy should be determined by a circus press office is unbelievable.

The Minister will now claim that although the Austrian Government might not have been taken to court, they are about to be, which is why the Government cannot introduce a ban, much as they would like to. The issue, however, has already been decided at European level. The European Circus Association submitted a complaint against the Austrian protection law to the European Commission, but the Commission closed the case in 2006, categorically stating that

“animal welfare questions are better left to Member States”.

The circuses looked to the European ombudsman to overturn the decision, but instead, just last year, the ombudsman upheld the Commission’s decision. The Commission, responding to the Government’s announcement against a ban last month, again stated:

“The EU rules ensure services can be easily provided across borders. But there are of course valid reasons for exceptions to the rules and restrictions are allowed”.

Since Austria’s ban in 2005, other countries, including Luxembourg, Hungary and Greece, have introduced similar arrangements without challenge. The answer is therefore clear: Europe is no reason not to introduce a ban. What other excuses will the Minister provide for the Government’s failure? Will he repeat his assertion that a ban requires primary legislation? That is not true. DEFRA’s own impact assessment states:

“Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act allows the Minister/Secretary of State to make such provisions as he thinks fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible. Under this legislation a complete ban on wild animals in travelling circuses could be introduced.”

That is pretty conclusive. It is no wonder that that assessment is no longer available on the DEFRA website. Instead, it has been hidden away in the National Archives.

The very same impact assessment dispels the other myth suggested by the Minister, namely that a ban would somehow contravene our obligations under the Human Rights Acts, an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has already put to bed. Without hesitation or ambiguity, the assessment states:

“There are no human rights issues raised by these proposals.”

That is a black and white rebuttal of the Minister’s ludicrous suggestion from his own Department.

What are the Government proposing instead of a ban? A strict licensing regime that is so strict that the Minister claims it will be as strict as if a ban were in place. If that is going to lead to the same outcome, why not have a full ban? This is absolutely baffling. This is the world of DEFRA today. The Minister must explain why he did not follow his own Department’s advice from its own impact assessment, and why DEFRA will not publish the legal advice.

The Minister claims that a licensing regime can be introduced quickly, so that animal welfare can be improved as quickly as possible. However, in the Secretary of State’s statement to the House outlining the policy, she proposed further consultation on the nature of the licence. More consultation means more delay. It is hardly a speedy resolution or a prudent use of taxpayers’ money.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulatory approach would not only fail to solve the problem to which the public are demanding a solution, but be far more bureaucratically cumbersome and expensive than a ban? Given that there is no real public demand for wild animals in circuses, does he agree that a ban is the cheapest, cleanest and simplest solution?

[Mr Reed]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He makes the case succinctly, logically and clearly. The situation is precisely as he has described it, and I agree entirely.

Animal welfare organisations, which we must listen to, are absolutely clear that it does not matter what strict rules would be established under a licensing regime. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association agree that a licensing regime is unworkable. They are joined by Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals’ Protection Society in supporting a ban. Not a single animal welfare organisation supports a licensing approach; the only ones that do are the circuses themselves.

A licensing regime would be practically unenforceable. Even if inspectors were appointed by the Department, the regime would still be overseen by local authorities, if the system continues to be based on that used for assessing welfare standards in zoos. Circuses, unlike zoos, move around, making it impossible for councils to enforce the strict welfare standards that the Minister says that he wants to see introduced.

Even if local authorities wanted to take action, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has just closed a consultation on burdens on local authorities, where he proposes to remove their powers to prosecute for animal cruelty. Not only has DEFRA been forced to implement the biggest cuts of any Department, but it is now being sidelined and ignored by other Ministers. DEFRA has become a laughing stock, an embarrassment and a figure of fun. For every stakeholder and everybody who cares about the DEFRA agenda and environmental politics in this country, it is a disaster.

It is no wonder that DEFRA has been sidelined. We have already seen the humiliating debacle over the sale of our forests, delays to the water White Paper, cuts to the flood defences and confusion on waste, and now we have this excuse for a policy. DEFRA is a Department in special measures and I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has intervened. However, he needs to get a grip and stop treating this Department as the political equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. Intervening to prevent a ban is a mistake. Animal welfare organisations want it; Members in all parts of the House want it; and the public want it in overwhelming numbers. It has been implemented successfully in Europe. There is no need for new legislation, and the Human Rights Act certainly does not have anything to do with it.

The Minister knows this, so I urge him to stop digging and to print the legal advice, or risk accusations of there being none. If he will not print and publish it, why not? Would it be, as has been suggested, because of the hidden hand and influence of No. 10? Is this not more about saving face than animal welfare? This is an opportunity for the Department to do the right thing, to begin the climb out of special measures and to implement the ban. It is what the House wants; it is what the country wants; and I suggest that the Government get on with it.