Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The results of the Krebs trials, which were conducted by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, demonstrated that after nine years—long after the end of the trials themselves—there was a reduction of 27%, and even 29%, in the cull zone, which was slightly offset by a temporary increase in the peripheral area. What matters, however, are the measures that are taken to reduce that increase, which is why we are now saying that any group or farmer must now put forward their own ideas about how they will minimise this perturbation.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

In a parliamentary answer to me on 5 September, the Minister said that the science showed that his badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns a year in each cull area. Last year there were more than 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England, so even with 10 cull areas after 2013 the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of only 2.5%. However, the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?

[Mr Paice]

I suggest that the hon. Lady asks the farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has just said, the farming community is anxious to do something after 13 years of neglect under the Labour party. Of course it will be expensive for the groups of farmers involved, but that is up to them. This is one part of a large package of measures, all the rest of which the Government are doing.

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister says “do something”, but surely doing something effective is more useful. We know that the Home Secretary has objected to the cull and is concerned that it will divert scarce police resources away from policing the Olympic games next summer. The latest impact assessment, the consultation for which has just closed, put no figure on the costs, although last year’s consultation put the costs at £200,000. Have those costs risen or fallen since then and will he undertake to make them public so that taxpayers can see how much they are contributing to the cull before a final decision is taken on whether to proceed?

[Mr Paice]

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that no final decision has been made, a point that I need to emphasise. The fact is that the proposals that we laid before the House, and the consultation that has just finished, were agreed by the whole Government. On the policing costs, we are in discussions, and have been for some months, with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its attention was unfortunately but quite understandably diverted by the disturbances and riots, so it has only recently refocused, but I assure the hon. Lady that all that information will be used and involved in the final decision, when we bring it to the House.

Bovine TB

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Today I am publishing the Government’s bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England. The programme sets out a comprehensive and balanced package of measures to tackle TB in cattle, badgers and other animals. Nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2010 because of bovine TB, which cost the country £90 million in the past year alone. The problem is particularly bad in west and south-west England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to being affected by the disease.

Cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions and removal and slaughter of infected animals, will remain the foundation of the TB eradication programme. Measures to address bovine TB in cattle remain the cornerstone of efforts to control the disease right across the country, and existing measures will be strengthened. Measures already introduced include a significant expansion of the areas on more frequent routine TB testing and the DNA tagging of cattle to prevent TB reactor fraud.

Planned new measures that I am announcing today include reducing compensation payments for reactor animals from herds where TB tests are significantly overdue and removing some of the exemptions to the requirement to test animals before they move out of herds under annual and two-year routine testing. The Government will work with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to promote good biosecurity and provide advice and support to farmers, as well as investing £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible. The programme also sets out the proposed way forward on controlling the disease in the badger population, including plans to license groups of farmers and landowners to carry out science-led, strictly controlled culls of badgers in the areas worst affected by TB.

This terrible disease is getting worse, and we have to deal with the devastating impact that it has on farmers and rural communities. There is also the effect on the farming economy and taxpayers. Bovine TB will cost us £1 billion over the next decade in England alone if we do not take more action. First, we need to stop the disease spreading even further, and then we need to bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. We cannot go on like this. Doing nothing is not an option. Many farmers are desperate and feel unable to control the disease in their herds. If someone has repeatedly had to send their cows to be slaughtered, one can understand the desperation that they feel. We know that unless we tackle the disease in badgers we will never be able to eradicate it in cattle. We also know that no country in the world has successfully controlled TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.

Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, and we are investing in research, but there are serious practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to dispense it. We are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but a usable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much further away than we thought, and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready. We simply cannot afford to keep waiting. We already have a robust set of cattle controls in place, but we need to accept that in some parts of the country they are not enough. Unless we tackle each and every transmission route, including from badgers to cattle, we are likely to see the situation deteriorate further.

There is great strength of feeling on this issue, and that is why I have carefully considered the scientific evidence and the large number of responses to our public consultation. I know that a large section of the public is opposed to culling and that many people are particularly concerned about whether it will actually be effective in reducing TB in cattle and whether it will be humane. I wish that there were some other practical way of dealing with this matter, but we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in areas worst affected by bovine TB.

With the problem of TB spreading and no usable vaccine on the horizon, I am strongly minded to allow controlled culling, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. Badger control licences would be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners to reduce badger populations at their own expense. In light of concerns raised in the public consultation, a number of amendments to the proposed policy have been made. Key stakeholders will now be further consulted on the resulting draft guidance to Natural England, which is the licensing authority for the culling activity. The draft guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet to ensure that any culling is carried out safely, effectively and humanely. Initially, in the first year, the culling method would be piloted in two areas to confirm the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. An independent panel of scientific experts will be asked to evaluate the pilots.

Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified from the randomised badger culling trial, we would expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years. The Government will not attempt to eradicate the disease nationally by culling, and there would be no culling over the whole endemic area at the same time. However, controlled culling can make an important contribution in the worst affected areas. In the event of a decision to permit culling following the consultation, any culling licences granted by Natural England would be subject to strict conditions, based on evidence from the RBCT, designed to ensure that culling results in an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where it takes place.

Applications for licences would be considered only for a cull area of at least 150 sq km, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient experts and paid for by groups of farmers and landowners over a minimum of four years. Farmer groups would have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs at the edge of culling areas, in order to minimise the effect of perturbation, where disturbing the badger population can cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area. If culling is ultimately authorised, we will look to the farmers involved to show that they take their responsibility very seriously and that they are committed to delivering culling effectively and humanely.

I can assure the House that I have not reached this decision lightly. I am very aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate. However, having now considered all the evidence and all the views, I believe that this is the right way forward.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Opposition know that bovine TB is a major animal health problem. We understand the desperation of farmers affected by this devastating disease. That is why, in government, Labour set up the randomised badger culling trial. It cost £50 million and remains the most extensive scientific study over a 10-year period on the effects of culling badgers, protecting cattle and reducing bovine TB. The report concluded that

“the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results…suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”

Labour’s approach in government was led by that science, and we continue to be led by it. The Secretary of State talks of a badger vaccine. However, when she became Secretary of State, she cancelled five of Labour’s six trials a vaccine for badger TB. Why did she not give those vaccine trials a chance to work?

The Government’s announcement today is led by short-term political calculation. These pilots will not change the science. The Secretary of State’s solution of the free shooting of badgers has never been tested. It is therefore not supported by the science. There is strong evidence that localised culling, which she proposes, significantly increases the TB risk in neighbouring herds, as badgers move out of cull areas and spread the disease, particularly in the first two years. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that farmers outside cull areas and non-participating farmers inside cull areas are protected from bovine TB? The scientists who met at DEFRA on 4 April 2011 stated that vaccination, which she proposes, is unlikely to be effective at reducing the risk of infection. Her impact assessment states:

“For farmers in cull areas, monetised costs exceed expected monetised benefits.”

So the costs to farmers will exceed the benefits. That is hardly a compelling case to sign up for a DIY cull.

The Secretary of State said the costs of bovine TB will reach £1 billion over the next 10 years. What estimate has she made of the reduction in that £1 billion cost to the taxpayer over the next 10 years with her proposed cull? The taxpayer will still pay for TB testing, monitoring, issuing licences and judging the scientific effectiveness of her cull. Will she tell the House how much the cull will cost the taxpayer? The science shows that there will be, at best, a 16% reduction in TB cases after nine years. Does that mean a reduction in taxpayer costs of about the same amount?

The science also states that culling must be wholesale and sustained. What will the Secretary of State do if the results of the one-year pilot show that the cull has made things worse? How will she deal with farmers who sell up, move on or decide that they no longer want to be part of the cull? Will DEFRA pay for the cull if that happens? Has the Secretary of State seen the letter in The Times of Wednesday 13 July from seven members of the original independent scientific group? It states that

“there are no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades. If the Government decides to proceed with this untested and risky approach, it is vital that it also instigates well-designed monitoring of the consequences.”

There is obviously some doubt in the Secretary of State’s mind that this is a humane way to proceed. What kind of information will reassure her that killing badgers in this way is humane? How will she monitor and measure the effectiveness of the free shooting pilots? How will she prevent the pilots from becoming an open season on badgers elsewhere in the country? The Badger Trust estimated in 2008 that there were about 300,000 badgers in Britain. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of badgers that will be culled, and of the time frame? The guidance states that the aim is to reduce the number of badgers in control areas by 70%. What measures is she taking to prevent the localised extinction of badgers? What contact has she had with the Bern convention secretariat? Does not the policy she announced today put us at risk of breaching the convention on protecting our wildlife?

The impact assessment estimates that the additional policing costs to deal with protesters against the cull will be £200,000 per year. Devon and Cornwall police are losing 700 officers over the next four years. Which Department will pay for the police required in cull areas—the Home Office, which has had its budget cut by 20%, or DEFRA, which has been cut by 30%? What advice has the Secretary of State had from the Home Office and what public order issues has it identified? Will she publish that advice for the House?

The right hon. Lady promised farmers a science-led approach on bovine TB; today she has turned her back on the science. She promised that she would do something on bovine TB; today she has shown that she will do anything. The right hon. Lady has achieved the almost impossible: with the forests sell-off, her inept handling of wild animals in circuses and now an ill-thought-out badger cull, she has shot herself in the foot not once but three times—a hat trick unmatched by any other Minister.

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.

The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.

The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.

The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.

The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.

On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.

The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.

Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.

I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept tomorrow as being close enough to immediately. I can tell him that as of tomorrow, dairy farmers who are covered as members of the assured dairy scheme will find their state inspections going down to once every 10 years, as they are regularly inspected as part of the scheme to which they belong.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

In two weeks’ time this House will debate the Public Bodies Bill, which abolishes the Agricultural Wages Board, which sets pay and conditions for 150,000 farm workers in England and Wales. If the AWB is abolished, every farmer in the country will become responsible for negotiating pay and conditions with their workers. Can the Minister tell the House what estimate he has made of the extra time and money this new regulatory burden will place on farm businesses?

[Mr Paice]

I have rarely heard such nonsense. The whole purpose of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board is to reduce regulation, not to increase it. The change has been sought by the industry, which does not see it as regulatory, so what the hon. Lady has to come and tell us that it will increase regulation I really do not know.

[Mary Creagh]

The Agricultural Wages Board guarantees farm workers other benefits, such as bereavement pay and sick pay. Without it, their sick pay will fall from roughly £180 a week for a grade 1 worker to the statutory minimum of £81.60 a week. The AWB also guarantees children under 16 who work on farms £2.98 an hour. The minimum wage does not cover children under 16, so when the AWB is abolished children on farms will have no wage protection. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has considered the impact of the change on the under-16s. Can he tell the House what protections he will put in place to protect child workers from exploitation?

[Mr Paice]

There are many other regulations that deal with young people in employment across the whole of industry. The reality is that the board has been in existence for 60 years and it is now well past its sell-by date. The industry has asked for its abolition and, as the Public Bodies Bill stands, we will have to consult on that. The hon. Lady will be able to make her views known at that point—but I must emphasise that the contracts of employment of everyone currently employed in the industry will remain in existence.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain her decision not to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

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

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on ministerial business elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for her question, because it allows me to draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement laid by my right hon. Friend at 9.30 this morning.

During oral questions last Thursday, and in the written ministerial statement on Friday, my right hon. Friend and I referred to a current case against the Austrian Government relating to their ban on circuses. However, we now understand that the initiation of court proceedings against the Austrian Government has been delayed, although a case is in preparation and proceedings are expected to commence shortly. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I would be very happy to clarify the confusion that we might have caused. This does not, however, affect our policy to introduce a tough licensing regime. The very strong legal advice that we have received, which is consistent with the case being prepared against Austria, is that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998—[Interruption.]

[Mr Paice]

We believe that to have pursued a ban in the light of that legal advice would have been irresponsible.

[Mary Creagh]

As the Minister has said, the Secretary of State told the House at DEFRA questions last Thursday that

“the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1347.]

Her written ministerial statement the following day repeated that allegation, yet today’s statement has confirmed that no legal challenge exists. The DEFRA big top is spinning out of control on these legal cases that do not exist, and hiding behind human rights legislation—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Pathetic!

[Mary Creagh]

It is the Department that is pathetic.

Given that everything read on the internet should not be trusted, for the future avoidance of doubt will the Minister place in the Library the evidence and the legal advice he has received? The Austrian embassy in London confirms that there was a legal challenge against Austria by the Commission, but it was closed in 2005. The European ombudsman closed the case in 2010.

This House relies on Ministers giving us accurate and timely information, so will he take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House and the British public and will he stop hiding behind some circus owners who, after six years of failed national and European legal challenges, might well bring another case? That provides no reason not to ban wild animals in British circuses.

There is a further point. The Minister wants councils to license circuses, but there is a problem: circuses move from place to place, so conditions might be adequate in one town, but not in another. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proposes to remove the powers of local authorities to prosecute owners for animal cruelty as part of his so-called review of the “burdens” on local authorities. He is proposing a scheme that gives authorities the power to license, but no ability to prosecute owners if cases of animal cruelty are discovered.

This is another all-singing, all-dancing disaster from the worst-performing Department in government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs briefed the Daily Express on 3 April that the Department wanted a ban; the Minister’s Back Benchers and the rest of the House want a ban: it is time for another DEFRA U-turn and a ban on wild animals in British circuses.

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s record of events is somewhat distorted. We have not claimed that the case brought by the European Commission was anything to do with our decision. I referred specifically to a case that we understand is being prepared, as I have explained, by the European Circus Association against the Austrian Government. I can assure her that my officials have spoken today to the lawyer acting for the European Circus Association to confirm the validity of that. As I have said, we also received advice from our lawyers that the ban could be inconsistent with the provisions of the EU services directive. The hon. Lady has to ask, first, if this is so critical, why did her own Government not do it; and, secondly, if she were a Minister, would she be prepared to override the advice of her own lawyers and risk being taken to court for it, and subsequently having to withdraw the legislation she introduced?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The coalition Government are committed to relieving the unnecessary burden of red tape on all of business, but we understand that pressures can be particularly burdensome on SMEs. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals in the consultation, he will see that these concerns have been taken account of, and I am sure that if he participates in the consultation and further reinforces the views he has expressed in the Chamber, it will all add weight to the outcome of the consultation.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I start by saying how unhappy the Opposition are, along with the National Farmers Union, that DEFRA questions have been castrated to a mere 45 minutes, although I understand the Government’s desire to give more time to their stellar parliamentary performer, the Deputy Prime Minister?

In opposition, the Conservative party promised to

“bring forward the date that the largest companies are required to report on carbon emissions”,

yet the consultation the Government published yesterday gives companies an option to do nothing. We heard earlier this week that the hawks in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are holding up Cabinet agreement to the UK’s fourth carbon budget. Is there a Cabinet split on carbon reporting as well?

[Mrs Spelman]

We must set the record straight, for the sake of all hon. Members. It was the official Opposition who asked for the Deputy Prime Minister to be given a 15-minute slot, which had to come from one of the longer sessions of oral questions. If one analyses the number of questions that Opposition Members have tabled, one will see that the answer lies in their own hands. A glance at the Order Paper will confirm that twice as many Members on the coalition Benches tabled questions to DEFRA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

We are calling for a substantial reduction in single farm payments, but we do not share the Commission’s view that a cap should be introduced. The capping of farms whose size made them eligible would result in the fragmentation of farm structures, which would prevent agriculture from becoming more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The CAP has two key roles: ensuring security of food supply and environmental management. On 17 December, The Daily Telegraph reported a secret stitch-up between the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy of France: no reform of the CAP in return for French support for the British rebate. Yet the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference in January:

“Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments”,

but her colleague the Farming Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), contradicted her in the Farmers Guardian saying:

“Farming could not survive without direct payments…we will be suggesting a long, long transition from the current CAP system.”

We know the Prime Minister has full confidence in all his Cabinet Ministers, but who is in charge of CAP negotiations?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady should rely a little less on speculation reported in newspapers. She has been a politician for long enough to know that we should take what we read in the papers with a pinch of salt. She obviously was not listening when I very clearly set out our position. Her Government’s position on the CAP over their 13-year period in office was, frankly, not credible: they suggested that direct payments should end immediately. If the hon. Lady does not know enough about farming in this country to know that farmers cannot manage at this point in time without their direct payments, she has a lot of learning to do. Our new position is much more realistic: it is to look forward to the time when subvention will not be required, while in the intervening period helping the industry to adapt so that it is more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh]

OECD reports show that UK food prices have risen by more than 6% in the last year, and families across the country are feeling the pain. The Foresight report says we need to increase production not just to feed the UK, but to meet growing demand for food across the world. The Environment Secretary told her officials she wanted to be briefed on the price of a loaf of bread. Can she tell the House by how much the price of a loaf has gone up in the last six months, and why does her newly published sustainable development strategy make no mention at all of the CAP, food or farming?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure the hon. Lady does the household shopping in the same way that I do, and it is interesting that the hike in world food prices has not yet fully translated through into the cost of the grocery bill. This issue is a concern not only in the UK, but in other countries. It was also a concern to her Government during the last price hike in 2008. She should also be concerned about the farm-gate price of food: farming input costs are rising, making it extremely difficult for farmers to provide us with food at a reasonable price. That is one of the reasons why we made it a priority in our business plan to support British food and farming in a way that her Government did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) indicated during his Department’s questions that he would publish the relevant Bill in April. Obviously, Parliament is in recess for a significant amount of that month, but the Bill will be published some time around Easter.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the production of the forestry panel, but the trees are not yet out of the woods. This Sunday, thousands of people will gather in forests across the country to keep up the pressure on the Government to abandon their sale of 100,000 acres of England’s forests. People will be asking me in Dalby forest why their local organisations have been excluded from this panel. What should I tell them?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that the independent panel will hold its meetings in different parts of England, as was the original intention with the consultation, to come to people who have concerns about forests. A huge number of organisations—more than 70—applied to go on the panel, which will engage them all by seeking information, views and evidence from them all so that everyone feels involved.

Forestry (England)

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I would first like to say that I take full responsibility for the situation that brings me to the House today. Let me make it clear that we have always placed the highest priority on preserving access and protecting our forests, but the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, published well before we launched the consultation, gave the wrong impression of the Government’s intentions. That is why I am today announcing three steps that will allow for more measured and rational debate about the future direction of forestry policy.

First, I have taken a decision to end the consultation on the future of the public forest estate, and I take full responsibility for that. I am doing so because it is clear from the early responses to the consultation that the public, and many hon. Members, are not happy with the proposals that we set out. Secondly, the Government will support the removal of the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is in Committee in the other place.

Thirdly, I would like to announce to the House that I am establishing an independent panel to consider forestry policy in England. It will report to me with its findings in the autumn. The panel will advise me on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, and on the role of the Forestry Commission and the public forest estate. The panel will include representatives of key environmental and access organisations, alongside representatives of the forestry industry. I will shortly publish its membership and terms of reference.

If there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits that they bring. My first priority throughout this period of debate has been securing a sustainable future for our woodlands and forests. On many occasions in the House last autumn, Ministers gave assurances that our aim in all of this has been to do more to maintain and enhance the public benefits delivered by forestry—from recreational access to wildlife protection, and from tackling climate change to sustaining a wide range of small businesses. That is why my ambition to provide a better future for our forests is undiminished.

We have already heard positive suggestions about how we can do that for heritage forests and all other woodlands. We have spoken to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust, the wildlife trusts, the Ramblers Association and other groups. The Forestry Commission has itself acknowledged that change is needed, and will be fully engaged in the process, as I know that it has many ideas to contribute. We have also been listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have set up their own initiatives and local groups. We want to support them in that.

Finally, I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people's concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing for our forests and our woodlands.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s full and frank apology to the House and to the nation for getting this so very wrong. I am sure that the past 48 hours have not been easy for her.

Last night the Government announced that they would withdraw the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is now in the other place, and scrap the consultation on the sell-off of England's forests. Again, MPs heard about a major Government U-turn on the television, rather than hearing it here first. [Hon. Members: “No!”] It came through on BBC News and Sky at 10.20. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when she was informed of the decision that she is now announcing, as her statement is mysteriously absent from the Order Paper today? Only yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the consultation on the forests, set to run until April, would continue. When was the decision made, and who made it?

Today the air is filled with the sound of chickens coming home to roost. The Secretary of State has discovered that her first priority—delivering the 30% cut that she inflicted on her Department—has a hefty political price attached. Half a million people have marched, mountain-biked and petitioned against her sale of the century. They objected to the once-in-a-lifetime offer to buy something that they already collectively own. Under the cloak of reducing the deficit, she came up with a policy that her own Department admitted would cost more than it delivered in benefits, and which would have fragmented the environmental stewardship of England's forests. I congratulate all hon. Members who defied their party Whips a couple of weeks ago to vote against the sell-off, and I remind those who did not that the public may well extract a hefty price from them at the next election.

Today is not a victory for politics as usual: it is a victory for Liz Searle of the Friends of Chopwell Wood, whom I met in Gateshead two weeks ago, for the Save Cannock Chase campaigners, and for the Friends of Dalby Forest, members of which I met in York last weekend. It is a victory for the Save Our Woods campaign, for Alan Robertson from the Hands Off Our Forest campaign in the Forest of Dean, and for thousands of others. I hope that Government Members are listening to those names and will contact those campaigners. They signed the Save Our Forests petition and the Save England's Forests petition, and supported the silent majority in speaking up and telling the Government, “This land is our land”.

Last Friday the Secretary of State announced that her sale of 15% of England's forest permitted under the law as it stands would be put on hold until the consultation ended. The consultation ended last night—we assume by prime ministerial decree. Will the sale of those 40,000 hectares, or 100,000 acres—10 times more than the Labour Government sold during their entire 13 years, and we then reinvested the money—now go ahead, or will that sale await the outcome of the panel’s deliberations? How many consultation responses has she received, and will the panel consider those responses?

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally spoken to the environmental charities and listened to them on the matter. How will the freshly dreamed-up independent panel on the forests be selected? Why are representatives of the forestry industry—the lone voice in favour of her proposals—included in the panel, and why will it meet in secret? Should it not tour the country listening to what people want from their forests and showing a little humility on the subject? Can she reassure the public that foresters themselves, the custodians of forests, will be represented on the panel? How will the campaigners and the members of the public who have spoken up on the issue be represented? What is the status of DEFRA’s forestry regulation—or should I say deregulation—taskforce, which was quietly announced by her colleague in January? Surely we should not have two separate advisory panels, running in tandem, on the future of the forests? Can she tell the House how the Forestry Commission can possibly deliver better access and more biodiversity when it is set to lose a quarter of its staff in the next three months?

This U-turn highlights a wider problem about how this Government work. We have the Prime Minister, a self-styled non-executive chairman, now setting up a unit to monitor Ministers, but he is barking up the wrong tree. It is not individual Departments he should be putting into special measures, but the whole Government, who are out of touch with what people care about, whether that is the opportunity to walk in the forests or to ensure that babies get milk and books, or that our children have the chance to go to university.

I congratulate the Environment Secretary on one thing: she is probably the only Cabinet Minister in living memory to unite the Socialist Workers party and the National Trust in opposition to her plans. Will she learn the lessons of this debacle? She cannot ride roughshod over the people on a policy for which she has no mandate. By offering her 30% cut across DEFRA she has set herself on a collision course with anybody who loves the countryside—and if she will not stand up for the countryside, we on the Labour Benches most certainly will.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure you, Mr Speaker, and the House are aware, I volunteered to make an oral statement, and an oral statement does not appear on the Order Paper.

I made the decision with the Prime Minister. We have spoken about the matter, as the hon. Lady would expect, on a number of occasions. We spoke face to face about the options open to us, and we made the decision together.

The hon. Lady talks about the savings that I have had to make in my Department without a trace of acknowledgement that the reason Government Departments are having to make savings is the mess that her Government left this country in. I do not accept her argument that the proposals outlined in the consultation would have impacted adversely on the stewardship of our woodlands and forests. Since we are on the subject of stewardship, I remind her that, notwithstanding the savings that we have had to make in our Department, we have protected the expenditure on stewardship, precisely because we know that it is so important.

The many friends of forests that the hon. Lady listed will in many cases have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their concern about their understanding of the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill. In their minds, those clauses gave rise to a concern that their particular dearly loved forest might in some way be under threat. It is clear from my statement that, with the withdrawal of the forestry clauses, there can be no question about the protection of their forests in future.

The hon. Lady asked me about the planned sales. They have been suspended, and we await the outcome from the panel. She asked how many responses we had received. The Forestry Commission has received approximately 7,000 direct responses and 2,500 e-mails, and it has sent out 400 hard copies of the consultation document.

With regard to the composition of the panel, it will represent the broad range of views of all those who share with all of us a love and cherishing of the forests, and want to see them protected. It will be broad. Let me help the hon. Lady with her understanding of the deregulation taskforce, which fulfils a completely different function from that of the panel. We have invited Mr Richard Macdonald to advise Ministers on the simplification of regulation, particularly the regulation of agriculture. The consultation is complete: we have received the responses and we await Mr Macdonald’s report. As I said, this is a completely different function from that of the panel that I have announced today.

I found it quite hard to take the hon. Lady’s comments about the support that the previous Labour Government had given to the countryside—and the reaction of Members to those comments was enough to reinforce that point. Finally, as regards humility—perhaps, ultimately, that is the difference between her and me. I am prepared to come here and show genuine humility. If we heard some acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that her Government sold off forests with inadequate protection, we might begin to take what she had to say more seriously.

Flood Defence Allocations

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s flood defence allocations for 2011-12.

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

The coalition Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. Today, the Environment Agency is setting out detailed plans for proposed capital investment projects in the 2011-12 financial year. When completed, these schemes will provide better protection to over 112,000 homes in England. As already announced, a total of £521 million will be allocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Environment Agency next year for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. That will be roughly half revenue funding and half capital investment. The capital funds will take forward 109 schemes which are already under construction, and in addition to these, a further 39 new flood and coastal defence projects will go ahead. Of these, 21 projects will provide better protection to 13,000 households at risk. The remainder relates to repairs and safety enhancements to existing defences.

The list of new schemes includes a £5.7 million project to protect 182 households in Keswick from flooding of the river Derwent. In total, over the next four years DEFRA intends to spend at least £2.1 billion and increase protection for at least 145,000 homes.

Inevitably, it has been necessary to find savings in all areas of Government expenditure, but we have protected flood and coastal erosion risk management as much as possible. The reduction is 8% compared with the previous four-year period. We have protected front-line services such as forecasting, warnings and incident response, and the maintenance of existing defences.

As I have said previously, no schemes will have been cancelled. All defences already under construction—the 109 projects I have mentioned— will be completed. It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time. Funding has always needed to be prioritised. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns of people and hon. Members who are worried that a particular scheme is not on the indicative list for funding. I should stress, however, that this does not amount to the Government cancelling schemes or saying any particular scheme cannot go ahead in the future. The method of Government funding for schemes starting in 2012-13 and beyond is currently under review. That follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt after the widespread flooding of 2007. Transparency and greater local involvement are at the heart of the new proposals.

Whatever the amount of funding available, we cannot expect the national taxpayer to completely fund all the costs of each and every scheme; that has been a long-accepted understanding on both sides of the House. Difficult decisions must be made, and we must ensure that public investment delivers the most in terms of outcomes and benefits per pound spent.

Under the new proposals for funding flood and coastal erosion risk management, local ambitions in terms of protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford. We want to use every £1 wisely and make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity of benefiting from new or enhanced flood defences. With the funding allocations announced today, 112,000 properties will benefit from improved protection. Going forward, closer working with local communities and more opportunities for outside contributions will mean that more people will ultimately be protected.

[Mary Creagh]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State, to whom this question was put, did not deem the House worthy of an answer in person from her.

We know that the Environment Agency board met last Thursday to decide this year’s flood defence allocations, and that the press were invited to a briefing today at noon. We heard from journalists that DEFRA would issue a press release today at noon, but without this urgent question—which you kindly granted, Mr Speaker—Members would have read of the total nationwide flood allocations from the media this evening rather than debating them fully in Parliament today. Can the Minister tell the House why a written ministerial statement on the flood allocations was not even laid in the Library or on the Order Paper today?

Following the comprehensive spending review, Parliament has not had any chance to debate the flood budget for 2011-12, yet this is arguably the part of the DEFRA budget which most affects our constituents. The amount was revealed in a written answer on 20 January this year, which said that the capital funding for flood defences to protect our constituents’ homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. Will the Minister confirm that this is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account, and not the bizarre 8% cut that he insists on briefing in the media?

We know from the Environment Agency’s own figures that,

“On average, every pound invested in improved flood protection…reduces the long term cost of flooding and coastal erosion by £8.”

Has the Minister calculated that this £95 million cut to flood defence spending this year will actually cost the nation more than three quarters of a billion pounds—£760 million—in lost future value? We know that certain schemes have been cancelled, because MPs in those areas have been briefed. The Minister mentioned 39 new schemes going forward, but 59 flood defence projects are due to start over the next four years. How many of those will be completed in the next four years, and what steps is he taking to protect areas affected by these reductions in flood defence spending?

In the past, the Government allocated flood defence money for two or three years, as large construction projects take several years to plan and complete. We have heard from the Minister today about his plans for a flood levy. Again, this is the first time we have debated that on the Floor of the House, but the consultation is on the DEFRA website. Can he reassure the House that any proposals for future flood defence funding are not skewed away from areas of high need and towards areas where people have deeper pockets?

Can the Minister say what conversations he has had with the insurance industry about its consternation at these funding cuts? Labour’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. It runs out in 2013 and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have

“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”

Is the Minister aware of the comments of Steve Foulsham, technical service manager of the British Insurance Brokers Association, who said in Insurance Professional Magazine in January 2011:

“When the Statement of Principles comes to an end, it will be devastating for consumers”?

Has the Minister had any contact with David Williams, managing director of claims at Axa Commercial Lines, who says,

“Now that spending has been reduced…all bets are off. The Government is in breach of its side of the bargain, so if insurers wanted to stop providing cover, they would probably be able to”?

What contact has the Minister had with the industry to ensure that homes do not become uninsurable, or insurance premiums simply unaffordable? Does he agree with me that if insurance is too expensive, the Government become the insurer of last resort for those who simply cannot afford it?

Finally, may I ask that the Minister place a copy of his statement in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can communicate first with their constituents, and not be trumped once again by the newspapers?

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful for those questions and I am sure I can reassure the hon. Lady on a number of them. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from a meeting at Water UK. This is an urgent question, she came to the House a short time ago, and I have been available to prepare for it. Secondly, we have a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall when we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail, and I look forward to that. Thirdly, on the hon. Lady’s question about a written statement, there is nothing different in this method of announcing funding compared with previous years. Last year, there was no written statement. These are indicative budgets put forward by the Environment Agency. Where Ministers were, rightly, held and continue to be held to account was on the overall budget, which was announced in the autumn. There are plenty of opportunities for the hon. Lady—Opposition day debates and other circumstances —to raise this issue and hold Ministers to account. The Environment Agency is publishing its indicative list of schemes that are due to go ahead in the coming year, and that goes to regional flood defence committees for approval. So we are at that stage of the process, and that is no different from previous years, and no written statement was made last year—I checked before I came to the House.

On capital spending, really, the hon. Lady has got to change her tack, because she is not comparing apples with apples; these are two very different circumstances. Rightly, the former Chancellor in the previous Government announced a 50% cut in capital spending. If the hon. Lady were sitting on the Government side of the House, she might—rightly, as we have—favour flood spending and reduce the amount of saving accordingly, as we have done. But she cannot say that as if the spending last year and this year are the same, because they are not; the economic situations are completely different. She knows that and she really needs to change her tune.

The hon. Lady asked about communities with a high deprivation index, where there is a need to protect people on low incomes. I can assure her that the system will be skewed, as it is and always was, in favour of areas where a large number of people are on low incomes; that will remain through the payment-for-outcomes scheme.

On insurance, we are working closely with the Association of British Insurers. The statement of principles was always going to end in 2013, and it is always going to require important and careful negotiation to ensure that we get a scheme that protects people and their homes and so that they can get insurance. A good working party has come out of a flood summit that we held in September, which was attended by a number of hon. Members. The ABI is optimistic that it can find a scheme that will offer the kind of protection that households will need in the future, and I hope that that will be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

First, we need to make it absolutely clear that this is a genuine consultation, unlike a lot of the consultations that I experienced under the previous Government. We want as many people to take part as possible. There is a statutory three-month period; Ministers will reflect on relevant considerations and bring to the House our considered view in a timely fashion.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Public access is absolutely vital to local communities. The Secretary of State talks about her consultation period, but before that period is over, the Government will start selling off 10,000 hectares of public forest land. That is more than was sold in Labour’s entire period in office. I should like to know what right communities will have to bid for that land. How long will they have to raise the money? Will it be sold as leasehold, and is it correct that the selection for this year deliberately avoids woodlands that give public benefits because the Government want to maximise the capital raised from assets?

[Mrs Spelman]

The criteria for the planned sales are set out in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They are a continuation of a programme of sales that have taken place over the past three decades. As the hon. Lady knows, her party’s Government sold off 25,000 acres—[Interruption]—without the protection that this Government will provide.

[Mary Creagh]

Hon. Members cry “Shame,” but we sold that off to reinvest the money in the forest; this money is to be reinvested in flood defence schemes. The land will be sold with no higher rights of public access. Government Members should think very carefully about what is happening. Is it not the case that, on the public forest, the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing, does not know why she is doing it, and nobody wants her to do it? Is it not time to stop and think again?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady was not listening clearly last night. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances in this House that access and other public benefits will be protected. However, many of the pieces of land that fit the criteria the Forestry Commission has set out do not have access attached to them at present. She should reflect carefully on our public consultation document and gain a better understanding of what happened when Rigg wood was sold off under the conditions set by her party’s Government in their contract: without protection, access is now denied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), gave precisely that undertaking in the debate last night, and I believe that he has reiterated it today.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Campaign for Better Transport today launched a “Save Our Buses” campaign. Its research shows that Cambridgeshire county council is proposing to phase out all council bus services, and that Northamptonshire county council plans to cancel all existing rural services. Can the Minister tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Transport, or what advice has been sought, about the impact of those bus cuts on rural communities and economies?

Public Forest Estate (England)

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government’s intention in the Public Bodies Bill to sell off up to 100 per cent. of England’s public forestry estate is fundamentally unsound; notes that over 225,000 people have signed a petition against such a sell-off; recognises the valuable role that the Forestry Commission and England’s forests have made to increasing woodland biodiversity and public access, with 40 million visits a year; further recognises that the total subsidy to the Forestry Commission has reduced from 35 per cent. of income in 2003-04 to 14 per cent. of income in 2010-11; further notes that the value of the ecosystems services provided by England’s public forest estate is estimated to be £680 million a year; notes that the value of such services could increase substantially in the future through the transition to a low carbon economy as a carbon market emerges; notes that the public forest estate has been retained in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and calls on the Government to rethink its decision on the sale of England’s public forest estate in order to protect it for future generations.

The countryside is on the move against the Tory-led Government’s plans to privatise England’s forests. People are furious about this environmental vandalism. The Government’s impact assessment shows us that it is economic madness, too. The Government are carrying out a hatchet job that destroys the funding model which has protected England’s forests for nearly 100 years. If the commercial timberlands are sold, the ancient woodlands starve. The true value of England’s forests cannot be measured by the price that the Government will get from selling them.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady inform the House when she first discovered that the last Labour Government sold by stealth thousands of acres of forestry land?

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because we can put paid to the lies about it. Under the last Labour Government, there was a net sale of 4,000 hectares in England. We sold 9,000 hectares and bought 5,000 hectares. We expanded community access to the forests. The money was recycled back into the forests, and did not go to the Treasury.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the policy of the last Labour Government involved selling off some woodland and reinvesting the proceeds in areas such as mine to create woodland in urban areas such as the Mersey forest?

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s mention of the Mersey forest, where 1 million trees were planted in and around her constituency.

How did the Government get this so wrong? Over the summer, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rolled up her sleeves and took the axe to her own Department. She cut the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by 30%—the biggest cut of any spending Department. There are cuts to flood defence schemes, and nature reserves are next on the transfer list. England’s forests were slipped into the Public Bodies Bill in the bonfire of the quangos. However, she was seeking not a bonfire of the quangos, but the power to sell off all England’s forests.

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

If the hon. Lady is so opposed to this Government taking the powers in the Public Bodies Bill, why do the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government want the same powers?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the future—[Interruption.] My question back to him is what is happening to the future of forestry in this country under his Government? If they take the heart out of the Forestry Commission model—take away what is happening in Scotland and Wales—they will effectively destroy the system that has protected the national forests for 100 years.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend said that England is on the march. Wales is on the march as well, going by the number of Welsh people who have written in to safeguard England’s forests. However, they do not just visit those forests. To answer the Minister of State, the Welsh Assembly Government want the powers to safeguard Welsh forests against this very measure. They fear that Welsh forests will be rolled into the Bill that has been mentioned.

[Mary Creagh]

The Public Bodies Bill, which was introduced in the Lords in October, gives the Government the power to sell the lot—1,500 woods and 258,000 hectares. It is the biggest change in England’s land ownership since the second world war. This is not the first time that the Tories have sold England’s forests. After introducing the Forestry Act 1981, they sold off 72,500 hectares in three years. Let their actions then stand as a warning to us today.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I declare a passing interest: my wife was born in the Forest of Dean and my constituency town takes its name from the old Lyme forest along the Cheshire and Staffordshire border. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strand that links this policy with all the other policies for which there is no public mandate is the pretence that debt and borrowing are worse than was expected before the election? Does she agree that that is a pretence and that it does not justify this further act of public vandalism?

[Mary Creagh]

Absolutely; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.

Let us look at the maths. The Forestry Commission costs each of us 30p a year. Our ancient trees, worshipped by our ancestors as a source of food, fuel and shelter, will go in this sale of the century. The Secretary of State wants to finish a task that proved too much even for Mrs Thatcher.

[Mr Paice]

How many acres of ancient trees?

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister asks how many acres of ancient trees we have. The answer is that he does not know, because I met Forestry Commission officials this morning, and they told me that the mapping tool that the Government are using has excluded sites of special scientific interest. [Interruption.] The Minister should perhaps talk to his staff a little more. I have been talking to a lot of them, and I have not met a single one who supports his plans.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend refers to the countryside being on the march. Is she aware that in Islington South, where we have the smallest amount of green space in the whole of England, I have had 323 letters on this issue? They are our trees too.

[Mary Creagh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should have said that the country is on the march.

The Secretary of State did not reckon on the campaigns against these plans, both national and local, which have united people from across the political spectrum. Some 360,000 people have signed the “Save our Forests” petition—the largest public protest since the Government were elected.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Lloyd George, who set up the Forestry Commission in the previous Tory-Liberal Government in 1919, would turn in his grave at the thought that this coalition was selling off England’s forests and leaving only Wales and Scotland to manage and own our public land and forests?

[Mary Creagh]

I am sure he would be spinning in his grave.

I turn to the consultation document that the Government published last week. I have read it, unlike many Government Members, and it rewards reading. It raises more questions than it answers. There are a lot of warm words in it about communities instead of the Forestry Commission managing forests, yet on page 33 there is a harsh reality:

“Any sale would be at the open market value”.

Forests currently sell for between £3,000 and £6,000 a hectare. I will give way to any Government Member whose community can afford to compete with the private sector to buy up thousands of acres of woodland. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] No takers?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

Oh, we have one!

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her challenge. It is not in my constituency, but the community did indeed come together to purchase Bradfield woods.

[Mary Creagh]

My question is this: was it at full open market value? That is the question to which we shall return.

Page 13 of the consultation document contains more warm words about public access. However, although the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, introduced by a Labour Government, provides pedestrian access to 90% of the freehold area of the public forest estate, 20% of the estate is leasehold, so CROW rights there depend on the lease. The document warns:

“So-called ‘higher rights’, such as cycling and horse riding, have not been dedicated.”

Ministers talk of conditions in leases, but if they lease land for 150 years, who will enforce the leases a century from now? The public forest estate makes up 18% of the woodland in England but accounts for nearly half the publicly accessible woodland. That tells us all that we need to know about public access to private woodlands.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady think that the Woodland Trust and the National Trust will or will not be able to compete in the free market to purchase important forests?

[Mary Creagh]

The National Trust has come out this morning and said that the Government’s plans are absolutely no way to manage the public forest estate—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the news today—and the Woodland Trust has a big petition on its website saying, “Save our forests”. He needs to look at what they are saying. They will not pay their members’ subscriptions to the Treasury to buy something that we already own.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Literally hundreds of my constituents have written to me saying that something must be done to stop the sale. On Saturday week I am holding a public meeting to discuss—[Interruption.] The Minister of State may laugh, but we will be discussing how they can respond to his consultation. Will my hon. Friend come to York on that day to meet people and hear what they have to say?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that invitation. I shall certainly make the journey to York to hear what his constituents have to say, and I hope that Ministers go out and listen to what the country has to say on the matter.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the Woodland Trust. Does she agree with its chief executive, who told Radio 4 last week that:

“Public ownership is not delivering full protection…it is not as simple as saying that public ownership is better”?

Does she agree that different forests need different types of ownership structure?

[Mary Creagh]

Different forests are already under different sorts of ownership—the public forest estate makes up 18% of England’s woodlands. The question is what the nation values and for what we are prepared to pay.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Oxleas wood in my constituency is a sight of special scientific interest and has a great deal of biodiversity. It is small wonder that those on the Government Benches understand nothing about biodiversity, because under the previous Tory Government we came together and fought to save Oxley woods from a six-lane motorway that they wanted to build. We did not succeed by buying the woods, but would it not be invidious if the only way to stop such development under this rotten coalition was people subscribing to buy them?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point and brings us back to the question of money.

Who will pay to look after England’s forests? Page 17 of the consultation document has many warm words on the English woodland grant scheme. It says that any new owners could apply to create new woodlands and to care for existing ones. However, that document must be read in conjunction with a much more serious one—the impact assessment, page 39 of which states that payments under the woodland grant scheme

“may not be sufficient to secure the level of public goods currently provided on the PFE.”

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes some good points. Does she agree that this Government could learn lessons from the mistakes of the previous Government, of whom she was a member? Rigg wood in my constituency was sold off under the Labour Government, and as a result, public access has now been restricted. Would it be right for this Government to think carefully about how we protect public access to our forests, whether publicly owned or otherwise, given that her Government failed so badly?

[Mary Creagh]

Let us go back to the numbers. We sold off 9,000 hectares and bought 5,000. The Government whom he supports—I am grateful that he is backing our campaign on this issue—will sell off more land in the next year than the previous Labour Government sold off in 13 years, and they will do so without giving any guarantees whatever on public access. Government Members should think on that and reflect on the 40,000 hectares that are going in the sale of the century.

Page 18 of the consultation document states that

“significantly increasing woodland cover across the UK would be a cost-effective way to help with both climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

When I met Forestry Commission staff, they told me that they estimated that the future value of biomass and wind power on the public forest estate could be as much as £75 million a year. Perhaps Government Members can tell the House how the sell-off will increase tree planting if there are not enough grants to go around.

I recently met free miners and verderers from the Forest of Dean. They told me that it costs £500,000 to look after their forest, and that it brings £100 million to the rural economy. They want their questions answered. Who will run the forest? What would happen if the much-vaunted charitable trust collapses? How would their commoners’ rights be protected in any transfer? The New Forest costs the Forestry Commission £2.9 million to run. How will that money be raised in perpetuity? I shall answer that question for the House: the money will be raised through increasing parking charges, by closing toilets and by reducing spending on wildlife management. That is not my view, but the view expressed in the Forestry Commission’s staff consultation, which was published today and which lays everything out for us in black and white.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Forestry Commission currently manages all our forests to the Forest Stewardship Council standard, which is well above the base legal level, and does so at a cost of about 30p a year to each of us, which is a pretty good bargain.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a very interesting point and one that I was going to make later. As the hon. Lady has raised it, however, I will address it now. All the timber is responsibly produced, but in an answer on 17 January, the Minister of State said:

“Certification under the UK Woodland Assurance Standard is voluntary and this will be a decision for the new owners of woodland…The consultation…will include proposals on how certification might be maintained.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 471W.]

[Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

There are no car parking charges in the New Forest, but there are car parking charges in plenty of other Forestry Commission forests. It is entirely a local matter.

[Mary Creagh]

I am interested that the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary—who has been writing some interesting blogs about strawberry jam and other matters—is perhaps feeling the pressure from his local community on this issue—[Interruption.] Do wooden pips and strawberry jam ring any bells? That is a sign of someone who is under a great deal of pressure. One thing that we can guarantee the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that if this sale goes ahead, they will be paying for car parking.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

Page 20 of the document talks about experience from other countries and cites the privatisation of forests in Russia and central Africa, and the need to tailor our approach to the national context. I am still trying to work out—perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us in her speech—in what ways England’s national context is similar to that of Russia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, whose economy has been shattered by seven years of war and where one in five children die before their fifth birthday—[Interruption.] It is a country that I have visited and about which I care a great deal. I care about the natural timber resources of the Congo and I know that the Government give money to protect them, but the Congo is not the model that we should use as an excuse for privatising our forests.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is not the point that many of us would be happy to chain ourselves to trees and forests, but not to the structure and jobs of the Forestry Commission?

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has got against those dedicated public servants, but when I met them they were very concerned about the 270 jobs that will go instantly in the Forestry Commission and about how woodland will be managed with 25% fewer staff. They were concerned about how national diseases, such as sudden oak death, will be managed and about the loss of a critical mass of expertise from the Forestry Commission. The hon. Gentleman derides that concern as if it were all about jobs for the boys and girls. It is not: those workers care about the forests, which is more than can be said for the Conservatives.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad that we are talking about the jobs of those who work for the Forestry Commission. Although we are talking about forests in England, jobs throughout the UK are at risk. There are several hundred staff at the former UK headquarters in Edinburgh, many of whom live in my constituency and are very worried about the future. They have told me that between 400 and 600 jobs in Scotland depend on the link with the English Forestry Commission and they are very worried about the future because of the Government’s proposals.

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, we risk a cross-infection of job losses across the Forestry Commission estate with these proposals.

It is not only Forestry Commission staff who are worried. David Sulman, executive director of the UK Forest Products Association, called the proposals

“a recipe for disaster. If these leasing plans go ahead, thousands of jobs in the forestry and forest products sector will be put in jeopardy; many businesses could be starved of their wood supply and would face closure as a consequence.”

There is no plan for rural jobs and growth here.

The consultation is full of holes. The Government talk about the big society, but the Forestry Commission and its communities are the big society. The Department’s impact assessment shows that the costs will outweigh the benefits. There is no mandate for this. The coalition agreement promised

“measures to…promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.”

How will these sales achieve that?

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea what would happen to partnerships such as the Capital Woodlands project, which cares for biodiversity and conservation in the urban areas of London? More than 300 of my constituents from the inner city have written to express their concern about the wider issues that she has described, but also about those precious green spaces in the capital.

[Mary Creagh]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of woodland in the capital, which is something that the Labour Government sought to extend. Also, it is important that people living in cities have the enjoyment of woodlands and access to forests. How do the sales achieve that? What has happened to the Government’s woodland strategy?

What role can a broken-up forest play in carbon capture and storage? The answer is on page 51 of the closely read impact assessment, which says:

“The co-ordinated approach to implementing adaptation measures across the public forest estate would be put at risk through large-scale changes in ownership.”

However, we need to step back from the Public Bodies Bill and the full sell-off and look at what is happening in England’s forests right now. Ministers can sell off 15% of English woodland without any change to the law. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says from a seated position that that is why we did it. I have already explained how much was sold under the Labour Government; I want now to come to what will be sold by him. In our 13 years in government, we sold just 4,000 hectares net, reinvesting the proceeds in forestry.

The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in November that she and her Ministers had already factored in £74.5 million of sales under existing laws. However, she gave no guarantees that the money would flow back to the Forestry Commission. Indeed she was at pains to point out that

“it would be perfectly possible for us to use the proceeds from sales of these assets towards increasing the capital available for flood defences”.

We need to step back a minute. She has cut the flood defence budget by 27% and wants to sell off our forests to make up the shortfall that she has imposed. That does not strike me as any way to run a Department.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

If the model that the hon. Lady is talking about is so impressive, does she advocate using public money to purchase private sector woods back into the public sector?

[Mary Creagh]

That is indeed what has happened. [Interruption.] Yes, it has happened in the past. Why the shock? Some people cannot manage the timber or the forest. Forests cost money to run, so what the Forestry Commission does is advise the private sector on how best to manage them. I do not see any problem in that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Surely what the thousands of people who are contacting MPs about this matter are concerned about is not the public sector buying out private forests, but private developers preventing their families from using them, as the Secretary of State says her children were able to use them. Those developers will build golf courses, luxury chalets and adventure parks on those forests. What is proposed is an excuse for private developers to deprive everyone else.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a good point, well made.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

People care about our forests in this country. What we all want is a more diverse forest, with the old English oaks alongside other trees, but that is very expensive to achieve, so yes, I want a Forestry Commission that buys more land and turns it into diverse forest. What we have with commercial interests is a drive always to plant fir, to secure quick commercial returns.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend raises a key point. Much of the timber stock that is now ready for felling is being felled by the Forestry Commission, which is replanting it with broadleaf native English oak, ash and beech. If we sell off the timber stock, we lose the chance to change the shape and structure of the forests. Next year, with the sale of 10,000 hectares, this Government will sell more in one year than Labour sold in 13 years in government, and they will do the same for each of the following years. The holdings could include sites in national parks—I hope that Members from Exmoor are listening—community forests, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or sites of special scientific interest.

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

I hope that the hon. Lady will not seek to mislead either the House or the nation. Does she not accept that we have one of the toughest regulatory regimes in the world? It is not possible to fell a mature tree in this country without a felling licence, and part of the conditions for such a licence is nearly always that a new tree must be planted, and very often a broadleaf tree.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; and who oversees felling licences? It is the Forestry Commission, which the Government are cutting by 25%.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does it not surprise my hon. Friend that the Government appear to have made no mention of our much-loved national parks in relation to this issue, despite the fact that some of our best forestry land, including Grizedale and the New Forest, is in national parks?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I think that the reason is that the Government are planning the transfer of nature reserves away from Natural England, and planning changes to the governance of the national parks. Those changes are coming down the tracks, and those on the Government Benches would do well to heed them now so that they are not caught napping next time.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I want to raise the issue of the public perception of the plans, and to read out what my constituent, Lindsey Page, has told me. She says:

“I have heard the argument that if a forest area is sold off then there will be safeguards written into the contract of sale that should safeguard the access, but I don’t believe such contracts are enforceable.”

Does not that go to the heart of the matter? The public have no faith that there will be adequate safeguards.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions need to be brief.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the matter. The only legally enforceable rights are public access rights guaranteed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The introduction of further “higher rights” would require changes to primary legislation. [Interruption.] Who will enforce the leases in 150 years’ time? It is certain that none of us will be around to remember this debate at that time.

Who will benefit from the sales? The Confederation of Forest Industries’ website says that the price of commercial forests rose

“138% since 2002, which equates to a 17% average annual growth over the period”.

So the forests that the Tories sold off in the 1980s and ’90s have trebled or quadrupled in value. Where is the public benefit from those increased land values? There is none. Forestry land is exempt from inheritance tax after two years, and timber sales have no income tax or capital gains tax. When we sell our forests, the taxpayer loses many times over.

“Private companies buying 75-year rights to woodland would naturally seek to maximise returns from timber extraction”—

[Interruption.] The Minister should allow me to finish my quote before chuntering; I think that he is going to like it:

“There is no sign that the consequences for conservation, recreation and tourism have been properly weighed up in these plans. The Government is using ‘slash and burn’ tactics”.

Those are not my words; that was a press release from the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury in January 2009, when a similar plan was proposed by the Scottish Government. I do not see the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) in the Chamber today.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I should like to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to a quote:

“Liberal Democrats believe that the SNP are in a real way threatening to destroy rural Scotland through this hugely flawed proposal and are prepared to sell off the family silver for what amounts to a very small, one off sum of money.”

Will she join me and the Liberal Democrats in their “Save our Forests!” campaign?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. For some reason, the photograph of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with a “Save our Forests!” sign has disappeared from the Liberal Democrats’ website. If anyone can find it, please will they e-mail it to me?

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share the anger of thousands of people across the country at the double-dealing of the Liberal Democrats, who say one thing in their campaign leaflets and their pictures, but do the opposite in government? Is it not the case that, on this issue, they cannot see the wood for the fees?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is taking all my lines. How can the Liberal Democrats fight forestry sell-offs in Scotland, yet vote for them here in the Lobby tonight? We can answer that question: they are just doing on the national stage what they have always done on the local stage.

[Mr Paice]

When the hon. Lady provides the House with quotes, it would be useful if she properly attributed them in the context of the events that they addressed. She referred to the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but is she not aware that what he said was in response to the then Scottish Government’s proposals? Is she not aware that we are proposing not 75-year leases, but 150-year leases? Most importantly, is she not aware that under the Scottish national land use scheme—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Minister, you will resume your seat now. Thank you. I am on my feet and I have already said that interventions must be brief. That applies to everyone, including Front-Bench Members. This is a very important debate and many Members wish to contribute to it.

[Mary Creagh]

I missed some of what the Minister said, but I do not understand how his offering leases of 150 years is somehow better than the Scottish Government offering a 75-year lease.

We in the Labour party are proud of our record on forestry. We gave people the right to roam; we established two national parks; we replanted coalfield sites and landfill sites; and we brought trees closer to cities for all to enjoy. We planted 2 million trees in Warrington, 2 million in St Helens and 1 million each in Ellesmere Port, Moseley and Wigan.

The United Nations has announced 2011 as the international year of forestry. The Government have chosen a very strange way of marking it. The countryside is walking, cycling and riding against this Government’s plans to privatise England’s forests. People are furious at this environmental vandalism. We plant a tree to remember our loved ones, to mark an event, to leave a gift for those who come after us. The Forestry Commission costs each of us 30p a year. That is 30p to preserve our shared history, our cherished ancient oaks, ash and beech—sold for 30 pieces of silver! The Government’s plans will destroy the funding model that has protected England’s forests for nearly 100 years. If we sell the commercial timber lands, we starve the ancient woodlands. That is the simple equation and the fundamental fallacy at the heart of the Government’s proposals. The true value of our forests will never be reflected in the price the Government get from selling them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

A lot of issues have been raised in the debate, and I intend to respond to as many as possible. I undertake to write to hon. Members who have asked specific questions if I do not have time to answer them all.

We have heard speculation about all sorts of risks to aspects of forests if our proposals go ahead. I hope in the next few minutes to be able to debunk most of that nonsense. Those risks have been invented for totally spurious reasons. I stress that this is a consultation, and that it will last for the full 12 weeks, as is the convention. During it, we will listen to many of the organisations referred to this evening that have an interest in the matter, and I will personally discuss it with them.

We have repeatedly stated that existing public benefits will be protected in any transaction. I shall return to that point later. I also emphasise that the programme that we propose will take 10 years. It is not, as one Member suggested, a fire sale; it is a long and transitional but dramatic change in the ownership and management of Britain’s farms and woodlands. If we are not satisfied with any offer that comes forward, there will be no deal on the forest in question.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) demonstrated a considerable lack of true knowledge. [Interruption.] If Labour Members wait, they will hear the reality. She asserted that there was no information available about the area of ancient woodlands involved—it is 53,000 hectares, for her information—and, contrary to what she said, SSSIs are included in the mapping process. She also went on about Labour having sold only a net 4,000 hectares, but the fact is that it got rid of 9,000 hectares without adequate protection for public benefits.

[Mary Creagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

On the issue of—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I am not going to give way.

On the issue of funding, the reality is open for us to see in the Forestry Commission’s accounts. It costs £17 million a year to run the Forest Enterprise in England, excluding research and regulatory costs.