Bovine TB

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

That is a pessimistic interpretation of the IEP report. We are perfectly aware of the difficulty of achieving the numbers in the cull last year, but it was the first year. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that in the RBCT three areas achieved figures of 32%, 37% and 39%. They also got off to a slow start, but in later years they contributed to disease reduction. He wants a definition of success—it is reducing TB, and getting healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

On behalf of my local farmers in Devon, may I commend my right hon. Friend for pressing on with what is right? It is right for our farmers, for rural communities, for the taxpayer and for cattle, and although this is often overlooked, it is also distinctly right for those badgers that will otherwise die a long and lingering death from this dreadful disease. Will he confirm that there is not a single country in the world where TB has been effectively addressed in cattle without it first being addressed in the wildlife population?

Badger Cull

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye in this debate. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests. However, although I am a farmer, I do not have any cattle and therefore do not have any financially beneficial interests to declare.

I take no pleasure in talking about this dreadful disease. I am sure that everyone here today can at least agree that we have a serious problem. Given that the UK has the third largest dairy production and the fourth largest beef production in the EU in an industry worth about £8.4 billion, I want to ensure that that industry is not in any way jeopardised. We should all agree that badgers are at least part of the problem. Professor Donnelly has stated that nearly 50% of bovine TB incidents can be attributed to infectious badgers.

I think that this should be a cross-party issue. I hope that Members on both Front Benches can agree on a TB eradication policy, because whoever wins the next election will want to continue with it. I think that this debate is premature, and that it is impossible to come to some of the conclusions mentioned in the motion until the full copy of the report is available. I gather that the Government are about to publish a TB strategy, and until it is available and the Secretary of State has had a realistic chance to consider the report and the way the Government will go forward, we should not have this debate. Indeed, the timing now is unfortunate.

On 2 April, the Royal Society is to hold a high-powered seminar on the subject, to which I intend to go to learn the very latest scientific opinion. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that we should proceed on the basis of sound science—that obviously makes sense—and of cross-party agreement.

I stress to the House that we are talking only about trials. Let us try to learn the lesson from the trials. The lesson may be that we do not continue with them, that we do continue with them or that we continue with them in a different way. Let us at least try to learn it, and do it sensibly and maturely and in a low-key manner.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that we should learn lessons from other countries? The fact is there is no country in the world that has got on top of bovine TB without addressing its presence in the wildlife population. Ireland, which has culls, has reduced bovine TB by a third in recent years.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend brings me to the very last paragraph of my speech. In the Republic of Ireland, from 2008 to 2013, there has been a 50% reduction in the number of reactors—from 29,900 down to 15,612. For the first time ever, the Government of the Republic of Ireland think that they may well be able to reach TB-free status, which is what we should be aiming for in this country. What we want to see is healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

Badger Cull

Mel Stride Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

May I develop my argument a little further, because I have only just started? I have read only the first couple of lines of my speech, and I have already had five people seeking to interject. Please let me develop my argument before making further interventions.

As I was saying before I was intervened on, the Government disregarded the scientific evidence and my and other hon. Members’ assertions that the cull would make matters worse. They disregarded public opinion. The scientific views of a range of eminent individuals have been completely disregarded by Ministers; we have been confronted by Ministers who from day one have simply been gung ho for the cull and determined to proceed, irrespective of the evidence. It seems to me that Ministers are impervious to reason. Disregarding scientific evidence and public opinion so cavalierly is no way for a Government to make policy.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

May I carry on a little longer?

As we know, the cull has been a dismal failure. The policy is an absolute shambles. Instead of accepting the Government’s mistake, we have seen the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indulging in shameless propaganda to try to justify the unjustifiable. The Independent reports him as saying:

“These lovely black and white creatures you see on the telly and you put in your newspaper. They don’t relate to these miserable, emaciated sick animals spewing out disease.”

There is no evidence for that.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on 10 October, the Secretary of State said that

“some of the animals we have shot have been desperately sick—in the final stages of disease”.—[Official Report, 10 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 281.]

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Minister said:

“The Secretary of State’s comments about sick badgers relate to the comments made to him by contractors and farmers during the culls.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 714W.]

So there is no evidence at all. We are simply getting scaremongering nonsense from the Government. The cull has been a very costly failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I actually said that some might say that they are—[Interruption.] I urge hon. Members to check Hansard, where they will find that I said that some might refer to it as pseudo-scientific evidence. Irrespective of the fact that some veterinary surgeons argue that the badger cull is justified, many other vets actually take a different and contrary view.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I will not give way at the moment.

I wonder what on earth the Secretary of State is doing. I am reminded of Einstein’s definition of madness, which is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Lord Krebs, to whom the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) referred earlier, seems to agree with me. He oversaw the randomised badger culling trials in the 1990s and has labelled this cull a “complete fiasco”, saying that it has been “even crazier” than anticipated. After the schemes in Somerset and Gloucester missed their targets, he said that

“there is no point in doing something if it is the wrong thing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2013; Vol. 750, c. GC144.]

It could not be clearer. I am not saying that the Secretary of State is mad, but he is deluded if he thinks he can pull the wool over the British people’s eyes. The cull in Gloucestershire failed to meet the Government’s target of a 70% kill rate—it only managed 39%, as we know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am delighted that Government Members are as passionate as I am about wanting to—

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I will not take any more interventions, as I know other people want to speak. I know that some Members on both sides are passionate about this issue. It is important that we have cross-party support, and I hope the Minister will listen to Government Members.

On the cost, there is considerable evidence making it clear that vaccination is a less expensive way of dealing with this problem. When we take into account the cost not only of culling, but of policing the cull, which would obviously not be necessary in a vaccination programme, we see not only that the cull is useless and failing, given the context in which it was introduced, but that it is an expensive failure and much more costly than vaccination.

I hope the Minister will give us an assurance today that, having listened to the scientific evidence, public opinion, parliamentary opinion and Government Members, the Government will abandon the cull. If he will not give that commitment, I hope he will, at a bare minimum, give a commitment to do what I am about to set out. Given the controversy over the cull, I call on the Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish on this point, he will, I hope, be able to come in before the end of the debate.

I hope the Minister will support an independent and systematic review by the likes of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or the Royal Society. Such a review could evaluate all the scientific, social, economic, ecological and ethical aspects of the Government’s policy. If Ministers are so sure—

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I am about to conclude.

If Ministers are so sure of their position, they should have nothing to fear from a thorough appraisal of this controversial policy. Such an appraisal would provide the evidence base on which policy decisions could subsequently be based, and it would certainly command public confidence. That is something the Government should consider seriously, and I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will at least give an assurance on supporting such a review, if he will not give the assurance that the overwhelming majority of the British people want and abandon the cull altogether, as the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion urges.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate.

There is agreement in the Chamber that bovine TB is a major issue, especially for farmers. I acknowledge that TB in badgers is part of the problem, and no one has ever denied that it is—it is the Government’s response to that problem that is in dispute.

As we all know, the previous Government spent a significant sum on scientific research, and the overall conclusion from the randomised badger culling trials was that the culling of badgers could have no meaningful impact on the incidence of bovine TB. The pilot culls recently completed were not, therefore, supported by scientific evidence.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will give way just once, because of the time limits and because other Members want to speak.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for generously giving way. On the point about scientific evidence, the debate is, in a sense, slightly premature, because we await the outcome of the independent expert panel report, which will assess whether the culls were safe, humane and effective. In the event that the panel concludes that they met all three of those tests, will the hon. Lady accept, as I do, that the culls should proceed?

[Angela Smith]

The scientific evidence I was referring to was the 10-year, £50-million project, which is the fundamental basis for any science relating to the cull.

The pilot culls recently completed were not supported by scientific evidence. The justification for them was that they were to

“test the assumption that controlled shooting is an effective method of badger removal, in terms of being able to remove at least 70% of the starting population in the area, over the course of a six week cull.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 70W.]

Thus, the pilots were designed to test not the science, but whether controlled shooting could achieve the crucial target of removing 70% of the badger population in the cull zone, that figure being key to achieving even a modest reduction in bovine TB.

Therefore, my first question to the Minister is, what percentage of badgers was culled in the two pilot zones? Furthermore, will he confirm the scientific advice, which indicates that if there is an underachievement of the 70% target, culling is liable to make the incidence of bovine TB worse because of the impact of perturbation? Given that the current performance in the pilot zones could only be improved by the use of cage trapping, surely the Minister will agree that the pilot has failed in its testing of the assumptions I referred to. That is the key point: the pilots were testing controlled shooting against cage trapping.

It is generally accepted that vaccination presents an effective method of disease control; yet we are often told that the cost of badger vaccination is too high. However, as has been mentioned, according to a written answer from the Minister for Policing, the cost of policing the two pilot culls was around £1.6 million. Does the Minister acknowledge that if an effective cull requires cage trapping, it is more cost-effective to tackle TB in badgers by vaccinating than by killing? I should have said earlier that a greater problem is the incidence of TB in cattle. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government need to focus more on securing an approved cattle vaccine?

The previous Government’s response to the trials was to authorize six badger vaccine trials, which, combined with the vaccination programme in Wales, offered the opportunity to measure the effectiveness of the approach scientifically over time. The coalition, however, announced in June 2010 that

“it would be reducing the number…from six to one in view of its intention of reviewing policy on badger control, and the need to reduce spending.”

Will the Minister now agree that it was short-sighted to destroy the opportunity of making a rigorous scientific assessment of the effectiveness of vaccination in the field? Will he review that decision?

It is clear from scientific briefing that in Britain, badger behaviour is tightly defined territorially, which means that TB in badgers is to some extent contained by the animals’ social structures; so it is hard to fathom why the incidence of bovine TB has climbed so rapidly in recent years. One can only conclude that there is a need to focus on cattle movement and biosecurity to work out long-term solutions with a view to eradicating the disease.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North in calling for a review.

Water Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), whose speech was comprehensive.

In my constituency, 5 September was a bright, sunny day, as was 7 September. In between, on 6 September, we had 10% of our annual rainfall in a single day. There was heavy flooding all around my constituency. That was not isolated at all; many communities were affected, including both homes and businesses, and some of the affected homes had been completed within the last two years. For some of the people affected, this was the third or fourth time they had been flooded in the last few years, and it was heartbreaking to go around hearing all the stories. There was the story of the 20-year relationship that had finally been broken by yet another flooding incident, and that of John and Margaret Cone, whose house I went to in 2008 to see the watermarks 2-feet up their walls just before they moved out. They had to move out again, now aged over 80, and watch builders taking down part of the outside skin of their house to try to dry out the cavity.

I know that many other Members have similar constituency stories, but Redcar is on the coast and is flanked by the tidal part of the river Tees, yet this flood was not caused by the sea. Just a few months ago we were celebrating the completion of the £30 million sea defences in Redcar, but this incident was all about rainfall on the land.

We might think that being on the coast would help because water can run to the beach and away, but we have problems with natural watercourses and culverts. Some of those natural watercourses are commemorated in current street names: the Fleet, Long Beck and West Dyke. Culverts, sewers and house building have together created environments in which the water cannot get away as it should, the most absurd example being in the village of New Marske, which is halfway up a hill yet has serious flooding problems. Northumbrian Water has been investing heavily in tanks around the town and they are there to hold up excess surface water, to avoid inundating the sewerage system and putting raw sewage into the sea. Of course, given the golden beaches from Redcar down to Saltburn, which are a Mecca for surfers, I very much welcome that I and attended the “Surfers against Sewage” reception in the House just a few weeks ago. However, I also have to say that I support householders against sewage and many householders in my constituency had raw sewage in their house that day. An investigation is going on into the role of these tanks, and it is concerning that a lot of the major flooding was in the area of these tanks—so-called hydro-break tanks. I therefore think they may well be part of the problem, and I am not convinced that their overflow arrangements work sufficiently well in times of very high rainfall.

My area is suffering from a set of man-made problems. It is by the sea and it is not in a valley, so drainage should be no problem. We need radical solutions. I think of the city of Valencia in Spain where, after serious flooding in the 1950s, the entire river was taken out of the city. If anyone watches the Formula 1 race at Valencia, they can see the cars racing around where the new river is now, and the old river is a very strange-looking park in the middle of the city. It is a nice green area, but with bridges all the way across it. We may need similarly radical solutions to help divert flooding away from towns and villages, and I hope that, once the needs assessment is made, DEFRA will look sympathetically at the possible solutions.

On the wider issues, one of the problems the water industry has is that the benefits of investment are not necessarily aligned with the costs. For example, councils and builders continue to build on flood plains because they benefit from that and do not bear the costs when things go wrong. Who pays if watercourses are not properly kept clear? The people responsible for keeping them clear do not pay the costs if they are not clear. Do developers pay for all the new infrastructure costs of water and sewerage when they do developments? One of the things the Government should therefore look at is the alignment of costs and benefits.

There is no doubt that in the current system, water companies play a very big role in paying for the costs of the whole infrastructure—and so they should. It is not acceptable that they come running to the taxpayer to meet extra costs, particularly when many of them are clever at avoiding taxes. Water companies must be made to pay the full investment and infrastructure costs of the areas they are responsible for.

I very much welcome the part of the Bill dealing with flood insurance. The Bill’s aims and the Flood Re proposals are an excellent way of addressing the issues. I note that clause 47 is going to be fleshed out in Committee, and the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said that she would like to see more included in the Bill in this regard. I certainly support that, because we should all be concerned that the devil might be in the detail. I hope the Minister will say something about how he sees clause 47 being fleshed out.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

On making flood insurance available for properties most at risk, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we drill down to the details, such as the excess arrangements in the policies that are made available to those in need?

[Ian Swales]

I certainly agree and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I will cover in the next few minutes. We have heard from other Members today examples of great excesses being charged. Some, but not many, of my constituents are being refused insurance on any terms at all. However, the ones who do get insurance are reporting high premiums and high excesses; some excesses are so high that they are effectively insured only for an Armageddon situation. I therefore urge the Minister not just to concentrate on the availability of insurance but to make the premium levels and excess levels stick with the industry.

I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who made some very good points about houses completed since 2009. I hope the Minister will define what he means by houses built on a flood plain. What will happen to houses not deemed to have been so built, but which have nevertheless been flooded recently, like some in my constituency? What will happen to houses built since 2009 that have yet to be flooded but will flood in future? Will the insurance industry take the opportunity to withdraw insurance? The planning systems need looking at. Building regulations would help a lot in dealing with water consumption, and a lot more attention needs to be paid in the planning system to the issue of building on flood plains.

Some of the measures in the Bill are undoubtedly designed essentially to deal with water shortages, particularly in the south-east. This is yet another capacity issue for the south-east, to add to those of housing, schools, transport and many others. Water is plentiful in the north-east and, I understand, in the north-west too. I therefore hope that DEFRA Ministers will lend their full weight to the Government’s efforts to rebalance the economy away from the south-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have had a good and lively discussion this evening, with a number of thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions. I hope to address in turn each issue raised by Members.

I am disappointed that in about five hours of debate we heard little from Government Members about how they propose to deal with the cost of living crisis. Some of them scoffed when Labour Members talked about the pressures facing households up and down the country. The cold, hard reality is that families are struggling today. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who serves with such distinction on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made an excellent and thoughtful speech about the pressures on household budgets.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on cost of living issues. We also accept that they are important. Does he not accept that, if we look at the increase in average water and sewerage costs, we saw the greatest spike from about 2005 to the end of the period in which the Labour Government were in office?

[Thomas Docherty]

I will come on to that point in just one moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, the latest figures show that more than 80,000 households have sought advice from citizens advice bureaux about water bill debts in the past year, which is almost exactly the same as the figure for how many sought help because they could not pay their energy bills.

The hon. Gentleman asks what the previous Government did. As we have heard today, we took decisive action to help families. We were the only Government to have forced a real-terms cut in a price review. He joined the House in 2005, which is interesting because it was the previous price review in which there was a real-term cut. The previous Government introduced WaterSure—the first social tariff scheme.

Badger Cull

Mel Stride Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I want to make some more progress before giving way again.

Let me move on to deal with the effect on badgers. The so-called pilots were supposed simply to test the humaneness, safety and effectiveness of the free shooting of badgers. No information has been made public about how wounded animals that retreat underground to die can be included in the humaneness assessment. We do not know what proportion of badger carcases will be collected for post-mortems to see whether they were killed quickly. Observers will measure the animals’ vocalisations and the time between shooting and death to measure that humaneness. As we know, however, the Secretary of State has already made up his mind that culling is the way forward, so that is a purely academic exercise.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

If, as the hon. Lady suggests, culling is an inhumane approach to badgers, why does she believe that the British Veterinary Association and the British Cattle Veterinary Association are four-square behind the Government’s policy?

[Mary Creagh]

I have mentioned the letter in today’s edition of The Independent, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen it. I am not sure that those bodies are four-square behind the policy. The Government themselves do not know whether culling is humane. That is why the pilots are allegedly about humaneness. The hon. Gentleman’s Government do not know whether culling is humane.

If the Government’s numbers are wrong or marksmen kill more badgers than they are licensed for, badgers could be wiped out locally. If too few are killed—under 70%—TB will increase. I have talked about the range of badger population numbers; localised extinction could happen. The police’s national wildlife crime unit raised concerns back in 2010, as I know from freedom of information requests, that the publication of maps detailing badger setts could be used for “badger persecution”—their phrase, not mine—and that pesticides for poisoning badgers could be misused. There has already been one report of alleged pesticide misuse in Gloucestershire, which I understand the police are investigating. Will Ministers confirm whether the cull will proceed in Gloucestershire if wildlife crime is found to have been committed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion and in support of the many farmers in my constituency who have suffered most grievously over many years from the scourge of bovine TB. I would like to make an important point at the outset. I was rather surprised that the shadow Secretary of State appeared to imply that the farming community was heavily, or to some significant degree, divided on its opinion of the advisability of having a cull. I would advise those who have the courage to stand up and support the Government not to get too carried away with the notion that farmers or any other community, or indeed the British population, are substantially against these measures. The most recent YouGov poll on this topic did indeed illustrate that by a small margin there were more people against a cull than were in favour of it. In fact, the figure against the Government’s actions was 34%. That means, however, that some 66% were not prepared to say that they were against what the Government were doing. Indeed, some 29% were in favour of what the Government were doing; 22% expressed no opinion; and 15% did not mind one way or the other.

An important additional question was asked in that survey: of those not prepared to support the Government, how many would change their minds if they became convinced that these actions would prevent the further spread of the disease into other parts of the country? The figure was 27%. All Members should bear in mind that critical point. The Government are proposing a series of trials. They will not in and of themselves solve the problem, but they will help us along the road to understanding the approach we should take in future.

The reasons why it is important to take action have been well documented in this debate. We have heard speaker after speaker referring to the 28,000 cattle that were slaughtered last year and to the £1 billion cost that we are likely to face if no action is taken over the next decade. As the Member of Parliament who has the farm crisis network organisation based in my constituency, I know that spending some time with members of that organisation and listening to the harrowing, heartfelt stories about farmers who are suffering might of itself change a few minds.

Many Opposition Members have said that we suggest that this approach is a silver or magic bullet that will solve the problem. Of course it will not. It is one of a number of measures that need to be taken, as is recognised by the British Veterinary Association in its support for the action that we are taking. The Opposition have also argued that the results of the Krebs trials show that our approach is likely to make the position worse, but I do not believe that. I believe that the scientific evidence that emerged following those trials, as more information became available and more was understood about the mechanisms involved in transmission, showed that a different approach could lead to a different result.

I am pleased that the Government’s trials will take place in large areas, measuring 150 square miles, that the cull will be pursued over a lengthy period, and that natural barriers provided by motorways, the sea and rivers, along with vaccination at the periphery, will ensure that perturbation is minimised. That, I believe, will have some effect. I suspect that those who are currently saying, in response to a YouGov poll, that they do not support the Government’s action will start to turn towards us when they see what I expect to be the results further down the line.

Some Opposition Members dangle before farmers the prospect of vaccination, saying that no action should be taken now because it will soon be possible to get it going. Let me make two points about that. First, there is currently no oral vaccine for badgers, and until there is such a vaccine and until it has been proved to be effective, vaccination cannot possibly be a viable route for them. Secondly, as we have heard from many Members, there is no 100% effective vaccine for cattle. Tests cannot differentiate effectively between cattle with the disease and those that have been vaccinated, and the European Union does not expect a legal or viable vaccine to be available for at least 10 years. So vaccination will not be the answer.

As the Secretary of State has observed during his travels around the world, there is no country in which the problem has been tackled effectively without its being tackled in the reservoir of disease that is out there in the wildlife population, and this country will be no exception. I commend the Government for the stand that they have taken, and I urge Members to vote against the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I spent 13 years on the Opposition Benches trying to press the case for rural areas. The then Labour Government did not listen to what was said in rural areas then, and I note that the hon. Gentleman is not listening now to the realities of what is happening in those areas and the realities of what is happening in the agricultural industry. If he did, he would take a very different position.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of partnership funding on the provision of flood defences.

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

Partnership funding is enabling more schemes to go ahead and allowing greater local choice. It has already produced up to £148 million in external funding over the four years to 2015, compared with £13 million during the previous three years. There are indications that a larger proportion of protected households will be in deprived areas, and up to a quarter more schemes are set to go ahead in the coming years than was the case under the old system.

[Mel Stride]

The additional funding will be most welcome to my constituents—not least those in Buckfastleigh and Kennford, who were grievously affected by the recent flooding—but may I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it is rolled out as quickly as possible, and may I also ask him how many properties in Devon will benefit from it?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for his constituents, who suffered so much flooding last year, and his question is entirely understandable. I can tell him that £35 million of the £120 million that we announced in the autumn statement last year is already available for the 2013-14 financial year, and that the remaining £85 million will be allocated to schemes starting in 2014-15. That means that 5,000 homes in Devon will benefit from additional funds.

Flooding

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point—the key role played by water companies, which have an absolutely essential task in managing water. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I will be happy to discuss the particular case that he mentioned.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for this morning visiting Kennford, a small village in my constituency that has been overwhelmed by the flooding, and affording me the time to discuss the situation with him? Will he join me in thanking in particular Martin Weiler and his team at the EA, who have done such extraordinary work in the village in reassuring people, providing information, and so on?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend could not be there in person, but I much appreciate him ringing me in the car as I arrived. I would like to pay tribute to Martin Weiler, his team and all those from the Environment Agency whom I met and spent time with when I went to Kennford. I want to stress how completely awful it was to see those houses in Kennford. There was a thick black line about three feet off the ground, everything in people’s downstairs rooms was completely wrecked and all the electrical appliances were gone. All of that happened in an extraordinarily short amount of time—people were hit by the rapidly rising water over the course of about an hour on Saturday evening. It was shocking and I pay tribute to all the local agencies that I met, the local councils and the local community for how they are pulling together.

Badger Cull

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which brings me neatly to the situation in Wales, about which I know something. The Government there have used the same scientific evidence as DEFRA and have begun a five-year badger vaccination programme, starting in parts of Pembrokeshire. More than 700 badgers have been vaccinated since the start of that programme, which is about halfway through the land that it needs to cover. That part of the programme is on track to be finished towards the end of October. I hope that England will be able to learn from Wales and elsewhere to see how the problem can be tackled most effectively.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that until there is an oral vaccine, it is totally impractical to try to vaccinate the badger population? First, they have to be caught. Secondly, the person doing the catching has to be licensed by Natural England at huge cost, and thirdly, the cost is estimated at £2,250 per square kilometre.

[Caroline Lucas]

Trying to kill badgers is also extremely difficult. The original randomised badger culling trial was about killing badgers by capturing them in cages first, but the Government have dismissed that as too expensive. In doing so, they have reduced the likely effectiveness of the policy. It will lead to people trying to shoot badgers, which are difficult to kill outright because of their shape and size. That is extremely costly, and crucially it also spreads the disease even more widely. Vaccinating badgers is not easy, but it is a lot easier than shooting them in the way that the Government propose. It is also an awful lot more effective in stopping the spread of TB. That seems to me a good argument for not going ahead with shooting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion. It strikes me that many who have spoken in its favour have done so having assumed for themselves the mantle of majority support and that the country is behind them, but I can tell hon. Members that my constituents are not behind the motion. I can say that with some authority, because I surveyed some 30,000 households over the summer and one of the questions I asked was whether they were in favour of the Government’s approach to pilot culls to tackle bovine TB, and the results were that 59% were in favour of pilot culls, 27% were against and the others did not voice an opinion.

The reasons why a majority of almost 2:1 of my constituents are in favour of the Government’s courageous policy are simple and have been rehearsed many times during this debate: the huge loss of our cattle—some 26,000 last year; the huge expense to the taxpayer of almost £100 million last year and £1 billion over the next decade, if this is left unchecked; and a cost for every farm where there is an outbreak of £30,000, of which £10,000 is borne by the farmer. This is unsustainable; it cannot be allowed to continue.

As many hon. Members have said, there is a human cost to farmers, their families and the communities in which they live. That cannot be underestimated. One of my most special constituents is Mr Brian Warren, who runs a voluntary organisation called Farm Crisis Network, which provides pastoral support to farmers in distress. I invite any Opposition Member who supports the motion to come to Central Devon, sit down with Brian and listen to some of the stories about the misery that our farmers are going through as a consequence of this scourge. On most occasions, it is nothing short of harrowing.

I wish to deal with a couple of arguments that have been made by those on the other side of the debate. The first is that we somehow claim that our approach will be 100% successful. We do not. The culls will be pilots, from which we will learn. We accept that we will not eradicate bovine TB in the cull areas, but we have to accept that no other approach will lead to quick and certain 100% eradication either. We therefore have to use the proposed approach, along with increased biosecurity. The Government announced as recently as last week that biosecurity would be tightened up. We also have to look to the ongoing use of vaccination and the development of vaccines in future.

The second argument that has been deployed is that our approach will have no effect whatever on TB, or indeed will make it worse. Many Opposition Members have mentioned the independent scientific group and the Krebs trials as evidence, but time has moved on and so has the assessment of those trials. New analysis and new research has challenged some of their conclusions. I refer specifically to the report of one member of the ISG, Professor Donnelly. As recently as last September, she wrote:

“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull”—

the Krebs trials—

“to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28.0% lower…than in survey-only areas”—

as used in the trial—

“and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1% lower…than outside survey-only areas”.

As time has gone on, the evidence in favour of the effectiveness of culling has hardened.

[Andrew George]

Professor Donnelly has also shown that that reduction still represented an increase in the incidence of herd breakdowns, but at a lower level than would have been the case had the cull not gone ahead. That reduction is at the nub of the justification of the Government’s policy, but it was not an absolute reduction.

[Mel Stride]

In the absence of any other factors, that is correct. However, the pilot culls that are now envisaged for next year will be held on a different basis. The area over which they will be held will be substantially larger than for the Krebs trials, which is an important factor. We have talked much about the effects of perturbation, which will be reduced by having hard boundaries such as coastlines, rivers and motorways.

I turn to the issue of vaccination. It is simply impractical, as things stand, to consider the vaccination of badgers as a sensible way forward. Until we achieve a reliable oral vaccine we simply do not have the resources to go out and trap badgers individually, on an annualised basis, and have trained, registered and licensed personnel to go out and inject them with vaccine. That is simply not going to happen. I laud the Government for spending a considerable sum—some £16 million a year recently—to help develop the vaccines that we need.

It must be reiterated that even if we vaccinate cattle, we still do not have a reliable, licensed and usable test to differentiate cattle that have been vaccinated from those that are carrying TB. The DIVA test is not yet licensed and usable.

I have one or two quick points to make to Ministers. First, one reason why the NFU decided to ask the Government to postpone the pilots was that there was a fairly significant under-estimate of the number of badgers in the pilot areas. I press the Government to ensure that the same mistake is not made next time around, and to ensure that the badger survey that is being conducted, which I believe will be concluded next year, is carried out with great rigour and examined extremely carefully. We need to know what the numbers are.

Secondly, I ask that the Government press hard to ensure that the DIVA test is made available, fully licensed and put in place, so that we can use it if we can move forward on the efficacy of vaccinations and our position with the EU.

Thirdly, I ask Ministers to consider the fact that we need the consent of landowners who own 70% of the land in the pilot areas. In fact, it is important that we achieve well in excess of that, because it is quite conceivable that landowners will be leant upon at various points during the pilot, and that some may drop out of the scheme. We need to get well above that threshold.

Finally, we need to press on. We should recognise the courage and decency of the current Secretary of State and the Ministers who came before him, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). They have a done a sterling job of standing up for our farmers, their families, our communities and those who believe in the rural way of life.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I gave the explanation in my statement but would be happy to send him the numbers—[Interruption.] I cannot do any more to publish the information than say it in the House of Commons. Most of the information is already publicly available, but by all means, if he has not had time to find it on the internet, I shall send him a copy.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the blame for the vast incidence of bovine TB in this country and the intense misery it causes to my farmers in Devon can be laid substantially at the door of the previous Government, who did nothing over 13 years to have the courage to get a grip on this terrible disease?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right that the numbers are absolutely horrendous. In 1998, 4,102 reactors were slaughtered; last year, it was 26,000. Unless we get a grip, it will get worse.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and his colleagues for tabling the amendments, because that allows me to explain—and, I hope, to reassure the House—about the use and the powers of the clause.

First, I will address a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I assure him that I am happy to discuss the process with him and for him to meet my officials to see how it is progressing. He is a very honourable individual and he will respect the fact that because some aspects of what we are dealing with are extremely sensitive and are being watched closely by a number of organisations and, not least, the markets, we have to be extremely careful. I am pleased about how things are going. He also has the opportunity to meet representatives of Thames Water, Ofwat and others to express his concerns on this and related issues, and I know that he has already done so.

The hon. Gentleman asked which Ministers will make the final decision on such matters. The Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government will jointly take decisions on water and waste water applications. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will take the lead on considering the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendations. My officials are due to meet his officials shortly to agree the process, and I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman informed as that develops.

I should like to outline the practical problems associated with accepting the amendments. Together with advisers, the Treasury, Infrastructure UK and Ofwat, we are engaged in discussions with Thames Water over the financing of the Thames tunnel project. Those discussions are focused on reaching the right balance between protecting bill payers and taxpayers and ensuring that the project can be financed and delivered by the private sector. By necessity, a project of such scale and complexity as the Thames tunnel involves a complicated and lengthy negotiating process. I can foresee a host of practical problems in stopping that process at the point at which we feel that a reasonable package has been reached, which balances the risks and enables the project to be delivered, publishing a report on apprenticeships and a further cost-benefit appraisal, and then translating the agreement reached into a statutory instrument for debate in both Houses. Even if we can find a way around addressing potentially commercially confidential material in a published draft order, that additional regulatory process would prolong the completion of the project and add cost that is ultimately paid for by the customer. It would also create an extra layer of risk, with likely implications for securing and retaining the interest of investors in the project.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Is it not also the case that, almost of necessity, Parliament will scrutinise very large infrastructure projects in one way or another anyway?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth reminding ourselves of the kind of project that we are talking about. Subsection 1(a) refers to

“the construction of water or sewerage infrastructure”

and subsection 1(b) refers to

“existing water or sewerage infrastructure.”

We have therefore narrowed this down to a particular area of work. Subsection (2) refers to

“exceptionally large or complex works.”

Such an item of expenditure could not just sail under the radar of due parliamentary process. I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) who eloquently described the necessity for smooth operating in such circumstances, but we are talking about major projects that cannot avoid high levels of scrutiny, and I cannot see that adding an extra tier to that process would be effective.

In the event of the statutory instrument being rejected by Parliament, we would have to return to the negotiating table and reopen discussions. That might put in jeopardy the interest of investors that had previously been attracted to the project. That would add further costs, call into question the project’s viability and ultimately delay action to tackle the significant environmental problems that, in the case that is the driver for the Bill, are being caused by excessive sewage discharges into the Thames. That would, in turn, increase the risk of infraction fines against the UK for non-compliance with the urban waste water treatment directive.