Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I had a very interesting visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. Food and drink exports are now worth nearly £19 billion, and businesses like the one I visited play a key role in that growth. I enjoyed visiting Taylors of Harrogate, which now exports Yorkshire tea to China, and Bettys, with its confectionary brand, is part of our contribution to breaking the £1 billion mark in exports of confectionary around the world.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has ministerial responsibility for food production and processing, so it is concerning that yesterday she transferred a question about campylobacter contamination in chicken, which had been on today’s Order Paper, to the Department of Health. The Food Standards Agency has said that 70% of chicken on sale in Britain, much of it produced here, is contaminated by campylobacter. That is higher than the salmonella infection rate in poultry in the 1980s. What is she doing to tackle this totally unacceptable state of affairs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a project being run by the FSA and BOC to try to develop a treatment system of blast-chilling poultry to deal with this disease. Earlier this year the FSA ran an information campaign to raise awareness among the public of this problem, and as she is aware, the FSA has also recently published information about the incidence of campylobacter in poultry among a range of retailers.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister sounds complacent. He has no plan to deal with this scandal, beyond transferring questions about it to other Departments. Food poisoning caused by campylobacter contamination in the poultry industry costs our economy and the NHS £900 million a year in days off work and treatment costs. It kills an estimated 100 people and makes 280,000 people ill every year. When will he stop being the mouthpiece of the food poisoners and start being the champion of consumers?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, the FSA is the responsibility of the Department of Health. The FSA leads on food safety issues, including campylobacter. It is the FSA that has decided to publish this information, so it is right that the Department of Health should lead on this issue, but I totally reject the notion that I have been complacent: within the first week of coming into this job a year ago, I had our chief and deputy chief veterinary officers give me a briefing on the issue.

Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing a popular debate. I am sure the many Members who have spoken could have given significant extra detail over and above the detail they have given on their constituencies. There are few more important issues for Government than protecting people from extreme weather events. We all remember the catastrophic scenes of last winter. It is therefore important that we have an opportunity to debate preparations for flooding this coming winter. It seems clear from all the speeches we have heard today—from the hon. Gentleman, from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and from the hon. Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who waited extremely patiently for her opportunity—that prevention is better than cure.

After the significant floods in 2007, the previous Labour Government responded quickly and effectively. Once the significant relief effort was over, we commissioned the Pitt review, which was the most thorough assessment yet of Government’s ability to prepare for and respond to flooding. We put in place proper and effective long-term plans following that review, which included significantly increased spending. There was cross-party support for that, including for the increased spending levels. Unfortunately, that support did not survive the general election and the entry into government of the coalition parties. The response to last winter’s floods has been nowhere near as strong.

The reality is that this Government have been poor on flood protection. They slashed the budget when they first came into office and crossed their fingers and hoped it would not rain, but we know that the impact of climate change is increasing the risk of flooding in the UK. The Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s advisers on this, say that the chance of a £10 billion-cost event in the next 20 years is 10%. That event would be 10 times worse in cost than last year’s floods and more than three times worse than the catastrophic floods of 2007. The Government’s failure to take climate change seriously is putting more homes at risk of flooding. We have heard clearly from Government Members that they take climate change seriously. Perhaps they would like to ensure that their Government do so, too. This debate is obviously part of that effort.

The Labour party has clear plans to get the country back on track in managing flood risk. We will reprioritise long-term preventive spending, which is essential, as all the Members who have spoken today have made clear. We will establish an independent national infrastructure commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs, including flood defences. That will enable us to try to reach a consensus that lasts beyond general elections on what is necessary with this kind of infrastructure spending. That is the approach we need. It is what the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office say we need, but we have not seen a lot of it from this Government.

The National Audit Office made it clear in its report on strategic flood risk management that funding for flood protection has decreased in real terms by 10% since 2010, although the Government have made efforts to spin those spending figures. That is a real issue with the Government’s approach to flood protection, which is why we are hearing so many reports about problems with flood maintenance works, which I will talk a little about. Members have talked about maintenance in their constituencies, but the National Audit Office report last month put it plainly. Half of the nation’s flood defences have been maintained only to a minimal level. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on last winter’s floods, which was published in June, also made it clear. It said:

“Defra needs to recognise the importance of regular and sustained maintenance work in the prevention and management of flood risk”.

What has the Government’s response been so far? Have they taken the advice on board and set out plans to address failing flood defence maintenance and the falling level of spending? No. They have spent more time trying to hide the problem than actually dealing with it. When the National Audit Office criticised the Government’s record on spending and maintenance, the Minister responded by briefing against the methodology used in the report. As NAO value for money reports are agreed as factual with the Department concerned before they are published, how he could do that?

It is not just the National Audit Office saying that proper maintenance is not taking place. Last weekend, The Sunday Times reported that an unpublished maintenance review by the Environment Agency shows that thousands of areas along Britain’s rivers are in danger of flooding as a result of poor maintenance. Will the Minister commit today to publishing that maintenance review at the earliest opportunity? Those at risk of flooding due to poor maintenance, whether they are farmers or householders, should not have to read about it in newspapers. The failure on maintenance highlighted by the NAO and in The Sunday Times is just further proof of the Government’s failing record on flood protection, and it is not just the Opposition who say that.

The Government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, say that Government plans will leave an additional 80,000 properties at serious risk of flooding in the next Parliament alone if they are not improved. When I pointed that out over the summer, the Conservative press office—not the Minister’s party—briefed against the Committee on Climate Change’s figures rather than setting out what the Department was planning to do to get to grips with the problem. All the signs are that the Government spend far more time trying to spin their way out of trouble instead of putting in place proper plans to reduce flood risk, which are what is needed.

On flooding, it seems that the Government cross their fingers and hope for the best, which is not good enough. All the signs suggest that Britain is not adequately prepared for flooding this winter. Lead local flood authorities, which have a significant role in managing flood risk, not least in emergency planning and recovery—Members across the Chamber have remarked on good emergency planning, but also on some failures—are having their funding from DEFRA cut from £15 million in 2014-15 to £10 million in 2015-16. That is a cut of a third. Will the Minister please explain what sort of impact he expects a cut of that size to have? Will he also explain why 86% of lead local flood authorities have failed to publish their flood risk strategies, despite being required to do so by Ministers since 2011? A clear theme during the debate has been that co-ordination across many agencies, with everyone knowing who is doing what, is an important part of flood response. Once it has started raining, it is too late to set the strategy. People have to know what they are doing in advance, so what is the Minister doing about the fact that 86% of lead local flood authorities have failed to publish their flood risk strategies?

Not only are the Government failing to carry out the necessary maintenance work to an adequate level, but they are failing to communicate that to the public. The NAO has warned that communities are not being made aware of maintenance works in their area being deprioritised. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to keep communities informed of that? Some householders may be able to take steps themselves that might assist. At least if they knew that their protection was being deprioritised, they would know that they have a problem. If preparation for last winter’s floods was poor at best, the immediate emergency response was good. However, the response to ensure recovery after the deluge can only be described as slow and chaotic. For weeks after the flooding started, Ministers refused to accept the need for additional funding, the serious situation facing many farmers and householders and that the Government had a duty to act, regardless of whether official requests from councils had been made. As a consequence, the response was chaotic and not at all good. I hope that the Minister can assure Members here today and the rest of the country that the response in future will be better.

I have already said that if I was Secretary of State, I would start by reprioritising flood risk. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), removed that from his Department’s priorities. We would introduce a new national adaptation plan to ensure that all sectors of the economy are prepared for climate change. It is unacceptable for Britain to have a plan for adapting to climate change drawn up by a Secretary of State who openly said that climate change would benefit Britain. We must end this Government’s short-term approach to flood investment and prioritise preventive spending by establishing a national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs and get cross-party support to meet them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The Pitt review certainly recommended that we consider that, but the advice of the chief fire officer is that such a change would not be right at this point. The hon. Gentleman makes that point consistently in Parliament and with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have heard today about the huge contribution made by the fire and rescue services. There was no shortage of resource and they were a big part of the recovery process, which is a good sign that current arrangements are proving successful. DCLG can continue to keep the matter under review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will raise it with Ministers from that Department.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I want to cover some of the other points made in the debate.

The Government are also reviewing the packages of support that have been put in place, with DCLG reviewing some recovery packages, but we are focused this morning on preventing flooding. In the short time remaining, I want to address the specific issues, frustrations and hopes for swift progress raised by other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) sought assurances about the ditch clearance work that his communities believe would make a real difference. I am happy to get more information on that and to get back to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), along with a cross-party selection of Members from across the Humber area, consistently stresses the importance of future plans for that part of the country. As he uncannily predicted, that will be a matter for future major financial investment programme announcements, such as the autumn statement.

I am grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members. The Government are committed to investing record amounts in flood defences and to working with local communities to ensure that we spend that money more efficiently than ever to protect more and more homes.

Avian Influenza

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement and, in particular, for the briefing I received from her officials this morning. She is right to bring the matter to the House at the earliest opportunity, and I commend her for doing so.

Avian flu is a serious contagious viral disease in animals with a potential for some strains to infect humans, with all the health implications of that. Fortunately, human infection is rare, and, thankfully, the Government have already confirmed that the strain of avian flu discovered in ducks on Nafferton farm in Yorkshire is not H5N1, which is one of the strains that impacts humans, though it is believed to be an H5 strain.

When is it likely that the Department will be able to confirm definitively what strain we are dealing with? The Secretary of State will know that outbreaks of H5N8 have been confirmed in Germany and Holland during the past two weeks. There may be some connection between these outbreaks, so what steps is she taking to ensure full co-operation between the veterinary authorities dealing with the outbreaks there, particularly if, in due course, it is confirmed that the outbreak she is dealing with is of the same serotype?

I understand that the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a three-day nationwide ban on the transportation of poultry and eggs, yet, as I understand it from what the Secretary of State said, even in the 10 km restriction zone in place around the affected farm in Yorkshire, the measure she has announced bans movement of unlicensed poultry and products. Is she therefore allowing the movement of licensed poultry and poultry products? Will she give us a bit more information about what is and is not allowed within the zone? How sure is she that any potentially infected poultry has not been, and will not be, moved out of the zone prior to inspections, and that it will not enter the human food chain? What steps has she taken to ensure that there is no human exposure to the virus on Nafferton farm itself, either among farm staff or among the staff being sent to deal with the outbreak?

The Secretary of State does not yet quite know what the source of the outbreak is. Would not this information impact on what measures ought to be taken to contain it, and should she not therefore operate on the precautionary principle until she is clear what the strain is? There is clearly a possibility that the source is wild birds—a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserve is nearby. What steps is she taking to initiate sampling of wild bird populations? What is she doing to ensure that landowners and members of the public watch out for signs of the disease in such populations?

The Secretary of State said that the birds on the farm are to be culled, but this has not happened yet. When is it to be done? For how long does she expect the restrictions she has announced to be in place if the outbreak is confined to just one farm? What is she doing to get information out to members of the public who keep a few chickens or ducks within the affected areas?

At this important time for the industry, and for consumers, what is her advice to consumers considering ordering their Christmas birds, whether ducks, geese or turkeys? We have heard that the FSA has been clear about this, but what is the Secretary of State’s advice? Does she expect trade impacts on exports to the European Union and around the world? What steps is her Department taking to help industry to deal with any concerns? We know from recent history that long and complex supply chains have the ability to accelerate the spread of food problems across international borders before being identified and tackled, so what assurance can she give to UK consumers that contaminated poultry and poultry products did not enter the European supply chain before this latest outbreak was identified?

Finally, can the Secretary of State assure us that she has all the necessary resources to prevent the spread of this disease, including the surveillance of wild birds and the testing, monitoring and culling of infected birds, and to enable any necessary communication with the industry and the wider public?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response. I am sure she will agree that very swift action has already been taken from the time of the original notification on Friday. We have already seen the testing taking place and the imposition of the restriction zone within which no movements are allowed.

On the hon. Lady’s specific question, people will be able to do that only if they are issued with a specific licence, and that will follow testing. We have set up a national control centre to deal with this disease. A local operation will be run out of Beverley to make sure that appropriate resources are put in place for surveillance in the local area.

We are taking this extremely seriously. One of my priorities as Secretary of State is to make sure that we are protected from animal and plant disease. One of the things we have done since 2010 is to protect the number of veterinary staff within our organisations to make sure that we have the resources to deal with disease outbreaks such as this. We have a good record, but we cannot be complacent. That is why earlier this year the Government released a new strategy on dealing with biosecurity risks and notifiable diseases.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. First, let us be clear that the Food Standards Agency has said that this does not pose a risk to food safety for UK consumers. That is a very important point. The chicken and turkey that people eat continue to be safe. This is a live animal disease. It is very important that we take steps to deal with it as soon as we are able, and that is what we have done. It poses a risk to the bird population, but it is an animal disease, not a human disease. I want to make that point very clearly.

The hon. Lady asked about protection for people working in farms in the area. As regards the risk to human health, we have put in place protections for the people on the farm that has been affected, and other local farms also have those protections in place. However, as I have said, the risk to human health is very low. That view has been supported not just by Public Health England but by the chief medical officer.

We are working with our European counterparts. Our organisation, APHA—the Animal and Plant Health Agency—is closely co-operating with those in the Netherlands and Germany to make sure that we are fully updated on what is happening.

We are at the early stages of examining what strain this is. We have ruled out H5N1 but we are looking closely at what strain it is. That is the work of the chief veterinary officer and we will know more in the coming days. Detailed work needs to be done so we are continuing to do that.

We have seen a good co-ordinated effort from all kinds of organisations, including the industry, the National Farmers Union, the police and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and we need to keep that up to make sure we stamp out this disease. All the experience of animal disease shows that it is important to take early and swift action and make sure it is stamped out.

Badger Culls (Assessment)

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

That is speculation, but even if it proves to be true, we will need to have a debate over what the target numbers were, and I shall come on to that later in my speech. We will begin after this second year, and certainly in the third year, to be able to analyse some of the results and see what is already known through some anecdotal evidence, which is that some farms that have had TB reactors for six or eight years have, this year, for the first year in those six or eight years, had no reactors. That may be anecdotal evidence, but it begins to point to the fact that the culls are having a beneficial effect.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that during the course of the randomised badger culling trial there were 472 new confirmed breakdowns to TB in the proactive culling areas? Would he therefore argue that the culls did not work in those instances?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, but I think she is drawing a false analogy, because the numbers removed in the randomised badger culling trial per square kilometre were considerably lower than the numbers removed per square kilometre in either of these two trials. Let us give the trials a chance—[Interruption]—instead of chuntering about it. These trials are trials—they are exactly that. What we need to do is evaluate the science and see whether it is in favour of the trials or not. I think that would be a constructive way forward.

The cost will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if nothing is done to eradicate TB from our communities. I ask the hon. Lady what her party’s policy is going to be: is she just going to let this disease continue to spiral out of control? Does she want our farmers to continue to slaughter cattle, and does she want to continue to have to pay more taxpayers’ money in compensation? Her public statements so far—I am happy to let her intervene if I am wrong—suggest that she would discontinue the trials, so we will have gone through all the pain, yet we will not have the scientific evidence to be able to evaluate them properly.

[Maria Eagle]

In my view, there is no point in going ahead with a policy that has been shown not to work, as is the case with this one.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

With great respect to the hon. Lady, it is too early to say. If she will not begin to take some of the anecdotal evidence of people on the ground who have to make their living from farming with cattle, I do not know what else I can say to her. Let us let these trials go ahead and evaluate them. Instead of setting our face against them, let us give them time and see if they work, and then let us hope that we can begin to eradicate this dreadful disease. I repeat what I have just said: this is part of an overall policy to eradicate TB in this country in 25 years. I will allow the hon. Lady to intervene again on me—does she agree with that aim or not?

[Maria Eagle]

Of course I agree with eradicating TB, but I do not see how one does that by pursuing a policy that does not work.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Well, that is the hon. Lady’s prejudiced view. She does not know yet whether it will work, because this is a four-year trial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate. It has been an excellent and passionate one on both sides of the argument. I would like to be clear about the Labour party view of the pilots. It is appalling that the badger culls have gone ahead for a second year when year one was described by David Macdonald, the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, as an “epic failure”. The Government should today commit to abandoning any attempt to continue these unscientific, inhumane and ineffective badger culls. They must instead work with scientists, wildlife groups and farmers to develop an alternative strategy to get the problem of TB under control. That is what Labour would do in office.

I accept that bovine TB is a scourge on our countryside. I have spoken to farmers whose herds have been affected and I have seen at first hand how it can destroy livelihoods as well as the communities that depend on them. I do not think that there is an argument about that. There is no doubt about the fact that the spread of bovine TB is a serious problem in need of a solution.

[Bill Wiggin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No. We hear, and we have heard today, that the last Labour Government did nothing to address the problem. That is simply not true. We spent 10 years and £50 million on a large-scale trial in the areas worst affected by TB to develop a credible plan to tackle the issue based on the best available science. That work included testing the case for badger culling. The conclusion was that culls make no meaningful contribution to eradicating TB, and that small-scale, localised culling, which had been the policy of the previous Conservative Government, actually worsened the problem. It may be worth noting that the real rise in the spread of bovine TB began in 1979. Far from doing nothing, the previous Labour Government put in place the evidence base that was needed effectively to tackle that scourge.

In a manner so typical of the Government, they have decided that to pursue prejudice-based policy, with no regard to the scientific evidence, is the way forward. The badger cull pilots are one more example of that disregard for evidence. The culling has nothing to do with piloting or learning anything. Indeed, the Government have just fought two legal battles to preserve their right not to learn anything, and I am not the only person who thinks so. Professor Lord May of Oxford, the former Government chief scientific adviser, has said that the approach to the badger culls has shown that the Government

“are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”

In other words, the Government have selectively used evidence to give the illusion of a scientific underpinning for the policy.

The guidance provided to Natural England ahead of licensing the original culls made it clear that the target for culling must lead to the removal of at least 70% of the badgers in the total land area in the application over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks. The two areas where culling took place, Gloucestershire and Somerset, were each granted two extensions in the first year. On timing alone, therefore, both culls failed. In 2013, an independent expert panel was appointed to monitor the culls to assess the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of the pilots. The panel came up with a scientifically robust method for assessing the effectiveness of the culls, which included hair traps and sample testing to provide the best estimate of the local badger population. The results of the IEP monitoring could not have been clearer. The badger culls were ineffective and inhumane. The culls failed.

[Simon Hart]

If there was a methodology improvement that enabled the contractors to hit that target of 70%, would the hon. Lady support it?

[Maria Eagle]

I would support a policy that worked. The evidence demonstrates that a cull has to take 70% of the local badger population out in six weeks, otherwise it will be ineffective. In Somerset, only 48% of badgers were removed, and in Gloucestershire that figure was 39%. That is far too few to make those culls effective.

The IEP was only allowed to cover the first six weeks of the culls. The equivalent figures at the end of the extended time were 50.9% in Somerset and 55.7% in Gloucestershire. The extra time taken is likely to have increased the perturbation effect and hence made the spread of BTB more likely. On humaneness, the IEP reported:

“It is extremely likely that between 7% and 22% of badgers that were shot at were still alive after 5 minutes and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain.”

Not only were the culls ineffective, but they caused unnecessary suffering for badgers. What was the Government’s response to that unwelcome advice from the experts? It was simple: cut out the experts and carry on with the culls. That sums up the Government’s approach. Instead of listening to the science, they decided to do away with it. That, I believe, is why there is not widespread support in the general population for the policy the Government are pursuing. The new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in last week’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions that she believes in science and evidence, but in her first week in the job, she announced her intention to press on with the culls in defiance of the scientific evidence. She missed a clear opportunity to leave prejudice-based policy behind and to place science firmly at the head and centre of her Department’s policy, and I believe that her decision speaks volumes.

The Government also changed the methodology that was used for the second year of the culls. Tim Coulson, a member of the IEP, which the Government have not used this year, in a recent article for the Journal of Animal Ecology commented:

“A change of protocol half way through an experiment reveals such a limited understanding of the scientific method that I am tempted to speculate that the government no longer wants to know whether the pilots are effective or humane. They just want to cull badgers, regardless of whether the population or humaneness consequences can be assessed.”

That, I am afraid, is my view as well.

We know that the badger culls are not being conducted in the name of science. We can only assume that to go ahead with them is the easiest way for the Government to claim that they have a solution to the problem of bovine TB, despite the conclusion of badger ecologists and scientific evidence that culling makes the problem worse. The Government’s decision to ignore scientific evidence and best practice has not been justified by the Secretary of State. The existing evidence makes it clear that culling is not the solution.

The 2013 targets were based on estimates of badger population size derived from capture-mark-recapture using genetic signatures from badger hair snagged in barbed wire. For 2014, there was no such field estimation of badger numbers. In the second year of the culls, the Government have not only departed from the original methodology but used two different methods to set cull targets for Gloucestershire and for Somerset. Why? For Gloucestershire, the Government relied on last year’s estimate, minus the number of badgers killed last year, plus a fudge factor to account for breeding and immigration. For Somerset, they threw out last year’s estimate and multiplied an estimate of the number of active badger setts by another fudge factor that was meant to indicate badgers per sett. Badgers per sett is a meaningless concept, however, because most badgers use more than one sett, and sett use is likely to change as culling disrupts the badgers’ social system.

The cull targets for the second year of the pilots are apparently derived from numbers that have been plucked out of thin air or worked out on the back of an envelope. Those crude methods for estimating badger populations provided a range for the cull target in Somerset of between 300 and 1,700 badgers, which is rather a wide range. DEFRA chose the lowest figure. Analysis by Professor Rosie Woodroffe, which has been referred to during the debate, has shown that there is a 97.5% chance that the cull will fall short of the 70% mark that the evidence shows would give it a chance of being effective.

Will the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the comparability of the methods used to assess the effectiveness from year one and year two of the badger culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset? Will he also clarify the reason why different methods of estimating badger population were used in Gloucestershire and Somerset to determine the numbers of badgers to be removed in year two of the pilot culls? Why did the methodology used to calculate the number of badgers to be culled change from year one to year two?

Will the Minister, in recognition of the importance of having a credible and agreed evidence base, agree to an independent scientific peer review of the methodologies used for determining the humaneness and effectiveness of the second year of the culls? Today, in an open letter from the senior editors, the Journal of Animal Ecology has offered its services

“critically to appraise the methods used and their power to determine the success of this year’s cull”,

and to provide

“a transparent and independent review of the available evidence using our extensive international network of reviewers, comprising scientists with acknowledged expertise in wildlife population monitoring and management, as well as expert statisticians and modellers.”

What possible reason could the Minister have for turning down such an offer? Will he, therefore, accept it? In DEFRA’s calculations of badgers per sett as a means of estimating badger populations, what account was taken of the movement by badgers between setts and the effects of perturbation? Can he confirm that Natural England’s audit addresses only adherence to DEFRA’s chosen methods? As we have seen, those methods are crude, vague, different in Somerset and Gloucestershire and different in years one and two of the culls? Are there any plans to extend badger culling beyond the pilots in Gloucestershire and Somerset ahead of next year’s general election?

What is the Government’s view of evidence from Wales, where there has been no badger culling but where there has been a crackdown on cattle-to-cattle transmission, improved farm biosecurity and a reduction of 18% in new incidents of bovine TB? As hon. Members have mentioned, the Government have continually pointed to international examples of controlling bovine TB in Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland to defend their decision to cull badgers. Do they not appreciate that comparing totally different situations will not yield the insights required for proper evidence-based policy making? Why should data from New Zealand or Ireland be more relevant to England than data from England? Not only are the culls an epic failure, but they are estimated to have cost more than £4,000 per badger killed, according to research undertaken by the Conservative Bow Group. Labour has consistently pledged to put evidence at the heart of policy making, working with scientists, wildlife groups and farmers to develop an alternative strategy to get the problem of bovine TB under control. We need to introduce stricter cattle measures and prioritise badger and cattle vaccinations, but the culls are not the answer.

In March 2014 I wrote to the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), offering to work with him on the development of an evidence-based, cross-party programme. Rather than engaging meaningfully in the search for a proper long-term solution, he ignored scientific evidence, made a decision based on his own prejudice and then offered retrospectively to tell me and other hon. Members what the policy was, expecting us to agree. That is no way to address a disease that will take many years to eradicate. These disastrous culls should be abandoned now, and we should work together across parties to develop an alternative that works.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am very much engaged with this matter, as is the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). On a positive note, dairy exports have risen by 50% since 2010. I was in Paris last week at the SIAL trade fair—the world’s largest trade fair—and I met representatives from White Farm Cheddar who are now selling their cheese in the Carrefour supermarket chain across France. We have good international prospects for our dairy industry, and we are working hard to open the markets for British producers.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State purports to run a science-based Department, so what evidence did she use to underpin her decision to withdraw CAP payments from farmers with solar panels on their land?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have just said, food and farming is one of our largest industries. It contributes £100 billion to the economy. There are 250,000 hectares of commercial roofs where solar panels can be located, but I do not think it is right that we locate solar panels on productive agricultural land that could be contributing to our economy, and I am sure the hon. Lady would not want that to happen.

[Maria Eagle]

There we have it—the Secretary of State had no underpinning evidence, just an ideological prejudice. Does she not realise, as the National Farmers Union has said, that land can be multifunctional, yielding an agricultural benefit as well as producing energy? At a time when National Grid is having to prepare contingency plans to ration energy use this winter because spare generating capacity is at a seven-year low, does she really think her priority should be cutting Britain’s ability to generate clean electricity? Is not this just another example of the self-styled greenest Government ever now resorting, in the Prime Minister’s words, to getting rid of the “green crap”, regardless of the consequences for our energy security?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This Government have a very good record on the environment. We have seen carbon emissions and air pollution go down and our rivers and water are cleaner. The problem with the hon. Lady’s point is that she does not seem to understand how important food and farming is to the rural economy. Under her Government, she failed to deal with animal diseases and the problems in that industry. The reality is that under this Government, we are seeing production expanding and overseas markets opening, and food and farming is now a much bigger success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I understand that we await the final judgment from the Court of Appeal on this issue. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can ensure that the Environment Agency takes swift and effective action when such concerns are raised.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion and welcome her to her new job. However, I am appalled to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), confirm that she is going to continue with the discredited, unscientific, inhumane and ineffective badger cull. Is she aware that Professor David Macdonald, the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, which will have to license the culls, has described them as an “epic failure”, adding:

“It is hard to see how continuing this approach could be justified”?

Will she at least undertake to ask the independent expert panel which reported on the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of year 1 of the cull to report on year 2?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. Let us be absolutely clear: the reality is that bovine TB represents a massive threat to our dairy and beef industries. We are looking at the potential loss of over £1 billion of economic growth in our country. We need to look at the best scientific evidence. I have already spoken with the Department’s scientific adviser about this precise subject. We are progressing with our programme, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State outlined.

[Maria Eagle]

That was a disappointing reply. I am afraid that the Secretary of State has just flunked her first test and missed a golden opportunity to put scientific evidence back where it ought to be in DEFRA—at the very centre of decision making. I would be grateful if she answered this question: will she now give an undertaking to ask the IEP to report on year 2 of the culls, as it did on year 1—yes or no?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Let us be absolutely clear: we are asking Natural England, which is a proper expert body, to assess how the culls are going and look at what we can do in future. We must use every tool in our toolbox to address this threat to our beef and dairy industries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The Government of course recognise Kew’s obligations to care for the national collections under the National Heritage Act 1983. Against the backdrop of the deficit, the Department has continued to offer relative protection to Kew. Overall, the annual average of the Government’s funding of Kew over this spending review period is greater than that of the last. We continue to work with Kew as it puts in place plans to raise revenue and we continue to invest in the excellent work it does.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

DEFRA has just published “Making the most of our evidence”—I have a copy here—which makes the ludicrous claim that the Department is in favour of science-based policy making. I note that the foreword is by the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord de Mauley, not by the Secretary of State, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has read it?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I read documents pertaining to my job as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Maria Eagle]

That is an interesting reply. Which of the unscientific policies insisted on by the Secretary of State makes the most of our evidence? Is it his denial of climate change? Is it his ineffective and inhumane badger culls? Is it his fantasy biodegradable plastic bags? Or is it his national air quality strategy, which would make air pollution worse? Does this not illustrate that in practice the Secretary of State, who appears to be allergic to science, routinely ignores evidence in favour of his own eccentric, ideological views?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady has had months and months to work out that splendid rhetorical blast—I get on with the day job. I was at the cereals show yesterday talking to real farmers who are producing food, and welcoming the first investment in this country by Bayer—following our agri-tech policy—bringing in wheat testing and leading on to the breeding of wheat. That is what an active Department does. [Laughter.]

Water Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I intend to make only a short contribution. The Minister probably heard most of what I said in Committee, but if something is worth saying once, it is worth saying three times, so I will do so.

I begin, as I did in Committee, by welcoming Flood Re, which is important. I pay tribute to the Government for getting us here eventually. It is incredibly important for my constituents and those of my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is here for this important debate. I am grateful and delighted that we have a scheme up and running to ensure that insurance cover will continue.

I am still concerned about the scheme’s limitation to properties built before 2009—a point that is often made by my constituency near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Many people in my constituency and constituencies nearby who bought their properties in good faith post-2009 have struggled to obtain insurance. I am still concerned that major developments on flood plains are continuing, including the Lincolnshire Lakes project near the River Trent in my constituency, where the proposal is to provide up to 10,000 properties in a major flood risk area on the River Trent’s natural flood plain. I have called on the developers to put a hold on that until we know where we are with flood defence funding for the Humber catchment area, but unfortunately that has not enjoyed the support of local Labour councillors, who accused us of scaremongering in trying to prevent that building on a flood plain. That is a concern because I am worried that the properties will be built but will not be covered by Flood Re and that there will be a whole set of other problems.

When I was in my constituency on Friday, visiting Hook church, which was launching its new heritage boards, I was approached by a single-property leaseholder who is concerned about whether he will qualify for Flood Re. He is not a major investor, but an individual who is using the property as a pension pot. He has been rejected for flood insurance yet again because of the flooding in Goole two years ago, and he is worried that he will not come within Flood Re. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) about the need for clarity.

I welcomed amendment 72 when I intervened on the Minister. Informing residents that they are indeed part of Flood Re and providing practical advice on their exact flood risk and how they can deal with it are important. The Minister mentioned the renewal and repair grant, which is an excellent proposal. Providing people with the means and advice on how to protect their properties is important, and funding is required. Whether or not there is funding, there is a big job to be undertaken to ensure that residents are properly informed about their flood risk and how they can protect their properties.

Many residents have it in mind that the only way to protect their property is through every-increasing defensive banks in our area, and that may be true, but it is not the answer to everything, particularly as my constituency is so low-lying. Much of it is below high-tide level, so it is impacted not only by tidal and river flooding, but by surface water flooding. Getting information to residents to ensure that they know how to protect their property is vital. I welcome amendment 72 and look forward to establishing in more depth what information will be provided on flood mitigation measures.

The Minister mentioned the renewal and repair grant. I hope that it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, to raise that while I am on my feet. Many of my constituents are trying to use the grant, but there seems to be confusion about whether they will be able to access it if the Environment Agency has come up with community improvement schemes. That is a particular issue for one of my communities because the Environment Agency, after pressure from many of us, has come forth with a scheme that will be in place next year to raise defensive banks at Reedness in North Yorkshire. It is not now clear whether those properties will be eligible for a renewal and repair grant. They will still be at risk of flooding and, in the spirit of amendment 72, which is about providing people with more information on how to protect their properties, it is important that they still have access to the grant. It is not their fault that their improvement scheme will come forward more quickly than other schemes. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am in order by linking the matter to amendment 72. I can see from that near-thumbs up that I am straying, so I shall move on.

Right of appeal is another issue that I spoke about in Committee. We need a mechanism of appeal for residents who are judged to be outside Flood Re. We know from the debates in Committee and elsewhere that that will be a very small number of people, but they are an important group all the same. It is important to have a mechanism that allows people to understand why they have been drawn outside the scheme, and they should have a right of appeal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, I ask Ministers to consider this.

I do not want to say much more. [Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from Opposition Front Benchers—in support of my last comment, I hope. If the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I will gladly give way. No? Okay.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Sit down!

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Lady tells me to sit down; that is a good way to work cross-party, if ever there was one. I will heed her advice, however.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those few comments, particularly on leaseholders. This is an important issue for residents who have made small investments for their pension pots, or in lieu of a pension pot, and who may now be drawn outside the scheme. Other than that, I support the scheme and the amendments outlined by the Minister.

Bovine TB

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement.

I agree with the Secretary of State on one thing: there is no doubt that bovine TB is one of the most important issues facing farmers today. It is a scourge and a threat to their livelihoods, and to those of the communities they serve. The ultimate solution to the problem will take time, a carefully considered use of the resources available and an understanding of the best scientific advice. Sadly, none of these things featured prominently in the announcement the Secretary of State has just made. Consistent with his inept handling of this shambles, he has put prejudice before science, secrecy before transparency, conflict before consensus and posturing before good policy.

Furthermore, he has completely ignored the will of the House, which only three weeks ago voted overwhelmingly to oppose his plans, to cancel the culls, and to seek alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Let me remind him that the result of the vote was 219 to 1, which by anyone’s estimate constituted a huge rejection of his policy and of the way in which he has handled the issue. He talks of a strategy, but there is no strategy here. This is an unscientific fudge with which he is trying to save his face.

The Secretary of State announced that the failed culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset would continue, although the IEP report said that they were ineffective and inhumane. He had planned to extend the cull to 10 further areas this year, and to 40 in due course. Does he still plan to do that, and if so, when? He said that

“culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment.”

That is nonsense. Will he acknowledge that in Wales, where there has been no culling but there has been a vaccination programme, there has been a 48% decrease in the number of cattle slaughtered because of TB since 2009?

The Secretary of State said that

“the pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death.”

The fact is that the IEP report said that it was not accurate in up to 22.8% of cases, enough for the panel to conclude that it was inhumane. How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the continuing use of a method of killing—free shooting—which has been found to be inhumane by independent scientific advisers?

There seems to me to be no plan for independent oversight of the culls. If that is so—and perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify his intentions—I believe it to be a grave mistake. How can he justify it, given that the culls are very likely to increase TB risks to cattle unless they can kill more badgers more rapidly than in the pilots? What confidence can there be that that is being achieved if there is no independent oversight?

When I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 March offering to work with him on the development of an evidence-based cross-party programme, he wrote back that he would publish his TB strategy shortly, and would then ensure that his officials briefed me on its contents. I should be grateful for such a briefing, but I am afraid that that attitude is symptomatic of the approach taken by the Secretary of State throughout this sorry episode. Rather than engaging meaningfully in a search for a proper, long-term solution, he ignores scientific evidence, makes a decision based on his own prejudice, and then offers retrospectively to tell me and other Members what the policy is, and expects us to agree with him.

These are the facts. The IEP report shows that the Secretary of State’s disastrous culls are neither effective nor humane. It says that his plans will make the problem worse, not better. The two pilot culls failed to achieve their own success criterion of culling 70% of badgers in the six weeks. Against sound scientific evidence, they were extended, and then spectacularly failed again to cull the target number of badgers. The culls should be ended, not extended. They have not worked.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a scientific consensus that the risk posed by ending these failed culls is lower than the risk that continuing them will spread the disease through perturbation? Given that consensus, why is he proceeding with them? What assessment has he made of the total cost to the taxpayer, and to hard-pressed farmers, of continuing the culls with any semblance of humaneness? If he proceeds as described, his culls can no longer be called evidence-based policy, if they ever were. What he has announced today is simply an open season on badgers in the culling areas. Will he confirm that the Government will agree to hold a full debate on the Floor of the House and a binding vote, in Government time, on the future of the cull programme and the report of the independent expert panel?

I believe that today’s statement falls far short of what farmers and the broader community deserve. Labour has made a series of reasonable, rational cross-party requests of the Government, none of which has been met so far, although the Government continually state that they want to deal with the issue on a cross-party basis. Labour will continue to work with farmers, wildlife groups and leading scientists to develop an alternative strategy to eradicate bovine TB. It would include tackling TB in badgers, focusing on vaccination; enhanced cattle measures, including compulsory pre and post-movement testing; a comprehensive risk-based trading system; and more robust biosecurity. We have said consistently that the culls are bad for farmers, bad for the taxpayer, and bad for our wildlife. The Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the roll-out of his disastrous badger cull programme means that Labour’s proposals are the only way out of this mess.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and congratulate her on her use of alliteration.

I remind the hon. Lady that between 1998 and 2010, under the Government she supported, the total number of herd breakdowns tripled from 1,226 to 3,634 and the number of cattle slaughtered rose sixfold, from 4,102 to 24,000. I also remind her that when we adopted a bipartisan approach back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we all but had this disease beat, with a prevalence of 0.01%. All that I ask is for her to work with us and follow the example of other nations with a severe reservoir of—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the excellent work of the National Forest Company in his constituency and across the 200 square miles of the national forest. Across the country, 2,000 hectares of new woodland will be created through the planting of 4 million trees, as part of £30 million of Government investment in the next financial year.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box after his eye operation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who said in a letter to a constituent that

“the Hunting Act is not under threat by the coalition government,”

and that it

“is not the Coalition Government’s policy…to amend the ban”?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind comments on my return. As she knows, we received an interesting report from a number of Welsh farmers, which presented a reasonable view that there is an increased problem of fox predation on lands since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force, but as the Prime Minister made very clear yesterday, sadly there is no agreement between the coalition parties, which is needed for an amendment to be brought before the House.

[Maria Eagle]

Following that answer and the Prime Minister’s admission yesterday, The Daily Telegraph is reporting today that Downing street has confirmed that there will be no vote on the full repeal of the hunting ban in this Parliament, contrary to the coalition agreement. Can the Secretary of State be clear with the House: will there be a vote in this House to repeal the hunting ban in this Parliament or not?

[Mr Paterson]

I think we have made it very clear. The commitment in the coalition agreement still stands and I have made it clear that a vote will come forward at an appropriate time.