Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James Paice

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Paice]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I too apologise for forgetting to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Is there anybody else while we are on the record? If not, I call Roger Williams.

Local Government Finance (Rural Authorities)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James Paice

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

If my hon. Friend is drawing his remarks to a close, which would be a shame, may I urge him to address the issue that he promised to come on to, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), about damping? It will mean that rural authorities will not see the gains to which they are entitled before 2020 and probably not at all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have already used 14 minutes, and every time we carry on, we are going to lose some speakers. It is that serious.

Badger Cull

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and James Paice

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Paice]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order, Sir James. I will make the decisions, although it is good of you to offer advice. I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that she has had a good run already; we ought to make sure that everybody else has a chance to express their views.

[Sir James Paice]

In the limited amount of time that is now available, let me deal with the issue of science. Everyone, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, recognises that Lord Krebs and countless others accept that the randomised badger culling trials showed a 16% reduction. There is a great deal of debate about whether that is sufficient justification, but let us start there.

As has already been said, the study group concluded that culling badgers could “play no meaningful part”, but we thought it necessary to delve deeper into the research and to establish what was behind its conclusions. First, that 16% is a net figure. In the culling zone the gain was more like 30%, but it was offset by the problem of an increase in incidence in the perturbation area outside the zone. Some effort was made to reduce perturbation in the original trials, but it was nothing like the effort that is being imposed on the groups as a condition of their licence applications. If perturbation can be minimised, the net effect will be radically increased, although we do not know by how much because that has not yet been done. Let me stress again, however, that the 16% is a net figure which includes a problem outside the zone, and that that problem can be addressed.

As for the “meaningfulness” conclusion, it relates to the costs incurred by the RBCT. We all know that the trials were hugely expensive, but those are the only figures that we have to work on. We wanted to find a way of carrying out a cull more cheaply. We opted for controlled shooting as the predominant method, although cages would have to be used as well. I remind the House that controlled shooting of foxes, rabbits and, more recently, some species of deer takes place almost daily—or nightly—out in the countryside. To suggest that it is brand new is nonsense.

We addressed those two conclusions, and tried to find ways of achieving the same result through slightly different methods. Let me finally remind the House that these are pilots—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman’s time is up.