Badger Cull

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Tuberculosis infection is of major concern to our farming community. The distress that is caused by having to slaughter cattle is immense. Labour Members are fully committed to making progress towards eradicating bovine TB, but we do not believe that culling is the answer.

We know that 94% of TB infection is caused by cattle-to-cattle transmission and only 6% by badger-to-cattle transmission. It therefore makes sense to focus significant efforts on biosecurity, animal husbandry and cattle vaccination. Cattle vaccination puts the farmer firmly in control. I therefore urge the Government, first and foremost, to redouble their efforts to develop an effective vaccine that can be used and tests that can distinguish between vaccinated and sick animals, and to sort out the obstacles to effective trade. In the meantime, as hon. Members have pointed out, a great deal can be done through greater insistence on vigilance, biosecurity and pre-movement testing.

In calling for an end to the Government’s costly and cruel culling programme, I will focus on alternative strategies. I will therefore draw hon. Members’ attention to the measures that my colleague, Alun Davies AM, who is the Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, is implementing to tackle TB in cattle.

In Wales, a whole range of measures are being used to strengthen biosecurity. It is early days to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures, but there are some encouraging signs. From December 2012 to November 2013, there was a reduction of 23% in the incidence in new herds and a 33% reduction in the number of animals slaughtered. Since 2010, pre-movement testing has applied to all herds. From 30 September this year, sole occupancy authorities will not automatically be exempted from pre-movement testing. The Welsh Government have also intensified enforcement of cross-compliance penalties for late bovine TB tests. The majority of farmers already comply with the requirements, but this will improve consistency.

In April 2013, the Welsh Government set up a specialist study to look at the regional factors affecting the pattern of disease in Wales to ensure the very best use of resources. Last October, they launched the Cymorth TB programme, or the TB support programme. Its purpose is to give farmers extra help in dealing with a bovine TB breakdown, including help from local vets, and to help farmers to remain TB-free in future.

The Welsh Government have also implemented a badger vaccination programme. In the intensive action area in north Pembrokeshire, 1,400 badgers were vaccinated in 2010, the first year, with another 1,350 badgers vaccinated in 2013. Participation is voluntary and there has been very good co-operation from landowners. The Welsh Government are also providing a badger vaccination grant, which will meet 50% of the costs of badger vaccination for five years. In June, Wales will host the world mycobacterium bovis conference. This will be an opportunity to share expertise and the experience of implementing measures to eradicate TB.

One of the most depressing truths about the recent cull by this Government is that it was not based on the strongest scientific evidence available in the first place. It need never have taken place. Under the previous Labour Government, we commissioned the randomised badger cull trials, the largest scientific project on the effectiveness of culling, which reported in 2007. The report of the independent scientific group on cattle TB stated:

“After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”

As other hon. Members have graphically described, we have witnessed the spectacular failure of the cull. That failure, sadly, was predictable. In conclusion, I call on the Government to work closely with the Welsh Government to look at alternatives to the discredited cull programme for the benefit of farmers across England and Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, but there are no massive cuts in the number of people involved in flood protection. The Environment Agency, like all other agencies and Departments across government, is having to use resources more efficiently as we seek to sort out the financial mess that the previous Government left us. However, its chief executive has said that he is prioritising important front-line services, and I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the work that it did over December, Christmas and the new year, which it is continuing now, to protect people and keep them safe.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Labour Welsh Government have also invested heavily in flood protection. In the light of the Prime Minister’s recent announcements about funding, will the Minister clarify whether it will involve Barnett consequentials for Wales?

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady will be aware that colleagues in the Wales Office and the Treasury will lead on how the Barnett formula operates, but if she would like to write to me or other Ministers with specific questions, I am sure we will get back to her.

Rural Communities

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has done the House a great service in ensuring that we have a debate on rural affairs—a subject we do not talk about enough.

There is an altogether too rosy picture of rural life, particularly in metropolitan circles. Some of the people who write our national newspapers seem to think that we all live in lovely stone houses in Cotswold villages inhabited by media moguls and retired admirals having country lunches. That is not to say that retired admirals can afford to live in the Cotswolds any more—it is probably only retired hedge fund managers who can. However, the reality of life in remote rural areas that are, dare I say it, less fashionable than the Cotswolds or Buckinghamshire, such as the part of north Lincolnshire that I represent, which is three and a half hours from London whatever form of transport one takes, is often very tough indeed. That is why this debate is important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) outlined in a very measured way some of the extra costs of living in rural Britain. I will deal with those costs in a few moments, but first I will talk about planning and localism.

If I walk out of my cottage on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty, I can walk up the hill and have an uninterrupted view over the vale of Lincoln to the Lincoln edge. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) knows that view very well. It is a fantastic view. Perhaps it is not as good as the view that you have, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the forest of Bowland, but we do almost as well in Lincolnshire as you do in Lancashire. We are very proud of that.

It is likely, however, that local people will soon be ignored by the planning authorities and that vast wind farms, higher than Lincoln cathedral, will be built along the Lincoln edge. This is not a debate about wind farms, but it is a debate about rural areas and surely it is a debate about the right of local people to have a say. The planning committee of West Lindsey district council has opposed unanimously the application for those vast wind farms. I believe that the planning process should respect the views of local people, particularly given that there are good planning reasons relating to local archaeology and the proximity to RAF Scampton, as well as the famous view that I have mentioned.

Localism affects other parts of the planning process. If Members read the front page of The Daily Telegraph today, they will see a banner headline that contains remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who sits in the No. 10 policy unit and is therefore a man of some influence. He talks about the national planning policy framework and makes the point that the views of local people about new housing must not be overridden by central Government.

Local councils are not naturally nimbyist. The people who sit on them are democratically elected. They recognise the need for new housing and for new affordable housing in particular. Surely we believe in localism. I thought that localism was a primary undertaking of the coalition Government. It does not behove central Government to impose their views about the nature of house building on rural councils. I am all in favour of encouragement and of a broad framework. However, if people of worth and ability are to be encouraged to serve on councils in Lincolnshire and other rural areas, they must believe that they will have some influence and power, and that knowing their local areas gives them some right, in broad terms, to determine how much new housing should be built.

To turn to a vexed issue, I want to disagree with one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, because there is no bedroom tax—it really is a spare room subsidy. In rural areas, we have to try to find a way—she was feeling her way towards this point—to distribute low-cost housing and to move people on from housing that is under-occupied so that younger families can get into it. As she said, this is a complex issue because there is not enough low-cost, single-bedroom social housing in rural areas. Local councils such as East Lindsey and West Lindsey district councils in my area are working on the problem and the local housing associations are very aware of it. I agree with her to the extent that localism comes into this. In this complicated area, central Government must work with local councils to ensure a good supply of low-cost housing.

The cost of living in rural areas is often not recognised. One can get bogged down in statistics and details, but it is important that we, as Members of Parliament who represent rural areas, put on the record the sheer cost of living in rural Britain, compared with living in urban Britain. People who live in entirely rural seats a long way from the capital are very under-represented in this city. Often, our voice does not get through. That affects all essential public services. In policing, despite high rural crime—I am a victim of rural crime myself—Lincolnshire is bottom of the heap for funding per head. It affects transport and hospital services. Again and again, despite the fact that incomes are lower in rural areas, the funding that we receive from central Government is inadequate. Our political voice is not powerful enough. We do not have a sufficient number of Members of Parliament or, dare I say it, Members in marginal seats, but we have a right to speak out because there is a clear injustice in the national funding formulas against rural people, who are often living in poverty.

That is not just rhetoric; it is fact. There have been a number of academic studies on the minimum income standard. That concept was invented by researchers and is carefully worked out. It is based on what members of the public think people need in order to have the minimum acceptable standard of living. There is no doubt that people in rural areas tend to have to spend 10% to 20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban areas, even though they often have lower wages or salaries. To reach a minimum living standard on 2010 levels, the research indicates that single working adults need to earn at least £15,600 a year in rural towns, £17,900 in villages and £18,000 in hamlets or remote countryside. Those in urban areas need earn only £14,400. For couples with two children, the annual earnings requirement is much higher at about £33,000 to £42,000, depending on the circumstances. I assure the House that many people who live in rural areas do not earn anything like £42,000 a year. The Minister, who is an excellent Member of Parliament, knows the scale of the problem in Cornwall. Rural poverty is a real problem.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned fuel poverty. The Government’s statistical digest of rural England for 2013 notes that, proportionally, more households in rural areas are in fuel poverty than the national average. That is obvious—it is a clear fact. Fuel poverty is even greater in sparse villages and hamlets than it is in rural towns. Some 36% of rural households are off the gas grid, as the hon. Gentleman said, as opposed to only 8% in urban areas. As we all know to our personal cost, those households are reliant on much more expensive domestic fuels than others. I do not pretend that I know the answer to that problem, but I know that the Minister will address it when he sums up.

Average weekly household expenditure on transport in urban areas is £55. In rural towns and their fringes it is £62, in villages it is £78, and in hamlets and isolated dwellings it is £90. The average for England is £58. In rural areas, the highest proportion of income that is spent on an individual commodity or service goes on transport. We should consider the sort of wages that people in rural areas earn. There are a lot of retired people on relatively modest pensions. They have to spend an average of no less than £90 a week on transport if they live in hamlets or isolated dwellings, which is an enormous burden.

It is obvious that most people who live in rural areas travel further than other people—45% further per year than the English average and 53% further than those who live in urban areas. Plainly, the very DNA of rural existence requires travel over longer distances. We in Lincolnshire know all about long distances. Some 96% of urban households have a regular bus service, and the 72 Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Greater London have fantastic tube and bus services. Only 42% of households in rural areas have a regular bus service. Famously, in my constituency in north Lincolnshire, we have the train service between Gainsborough, which I represent, and Cleethorpes, which runs once a week. Imagine a train that runs once a week—it is truly bizarre.

We cannot assume that everybody in a rural area, in the type of village in which I live, has access to a car, although there have been tremendously impressive efforts such as dial-a-bus services. Even if they do have access to a car, the cost that I have mentioned—£90 a week—may be truly prohibitive. There was a local couple from north Lincolnshire on television who could not even afford to go on holiday in England, because they could not afford the petrol to get where they wanted to go on the coast. People are having real difficulty in affording petrol, and some people in rural areas do not have a car and so have virtually no transport.

I do not want to say a great deal about access to broadband internet, because my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton dealt with the matter so skilfully. However, we all know that average broadband speeds are much slower in rural areas than in cities, and that a higher proportion of rural households have slow or no broadband. I am a bit technophobic, I admit, but when I am sitting in my cottage trying to use my local wi-fi and get on to broadband to do my parliamentary business, it is ridiculously slow. It is absurd—if I were trying to run a business, I would be out of business by now. I simply could not work in my own rural area. I have to do all my work from a computer in London. The internet simply does not work fast enough in rural areas.

In 2010—again, this is fact, not rhetoric—only 5% of urban areas had broadband speeds lower than 2 megabits a second, whereas the figure was 23% of rural areas. Surely that must be a priority for the Government. We are going to encourage people to avoid heavy transport costs and so on by working at home, are we not? How can we charge the rural economy if we have such slow broadband speeds?

I turn briefly to support for farming. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement that the Government will reduce the planned common agricultural policy modulation rate from 15% to 12%, which shows that the Government are listening. Like many rural Members of Parliament, I have been approached on the matter by farmers, and the National Farmers Union has rightly been concerned about it.

I know it is a matter for Europe rather than for us, but my personal view is that we should still try to transfer more agricultural subsidies from larger farms and estates and towards working farmers, many of whom are struggling. We need to help them more.

It is obvious that we have a problem of poverty in rural areas, and that there is not sufficient political weight to address it. The idea of minimum income standards is, in some ways, tied to that of the living wage. There has been a lot of debate about the living wage, but mainly focusing on areas such as London and the other big cities. I believe that the concept applies even more powerfully to the countryside. The social teaching of the Churches, which is a rich vein of thought and very much to be recommended as a read, puts strong emphasis on justice in the relationship between employers and their employees. For an employer to deprive a worker of his justly earned wage is traditionally described as “a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance”. It is that important. Provided that an individual is working full time, it is basic justice that he or she be paid enough to support himself or herself and their family.

We Conservatives would be foolish to concede the forum of debate on economic justice to Opposition Members. Conservatism has never existed, and should never exist, in some hyper-capitalist vacuum. Of course, we know the value of economic freedom and the marketplace, because we can see the unimaginable leaps in prosperity and the reduction of poverty that have taken place under free market economies over the past 200 years.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman regret the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which provided some of the very things that he is speaking about, such as decent levels of pay and a clear indication of what work is worth what pay?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is an interesting point, but we cannot go back in time to a structure created under the Attlee Government whereby agricultural wages boards determined what wages were paid in the agriculture sector. Let us look at the farming economy in Lincolnshire. I live on an estate of 5,000 acres—I do not own it, I hasten to say. When the boards were created, there would probably have been 40 or 50 agricultural labourers working the estate. Now, there are only one or two. Although the hon. Lady’s point is fair, I do not believe that agricultural labourers’ wages are quite the problem in current rural Britain that they were in the immediate post-war period. I am thinking more of the problems that are loaded on to the great majority of people in the countryside, who are not farmers and do not work for farmers but who are living in fuel poverty, are retired or find difficulty with their transport costs. Their children have difficulty in getting housing, and they perhaps work in low-paid jobs in the catering industry in local towns. That is more typically the structure of the current rural economy than the historic structure of large numbers of people working in agriculture.

I was talking about economic freedom and the value of the marketplace, but also about the common good, and I want to finish on that point. The freedom of the marketplace must be protected within an orderly context, with the best being conserved and the important and vital things that might otherwise be destroyed by the cold calculations of mere profit being preserved. In rural areas such as mine in Lincolnshire, that means businesses, farmers, employers and local and central Government coming together to co-operate for the common good, whether on agricultural subsidies, flood defences, the price of petrol or many other matters.

I am sure the Government are trying to listen to country people, but it is important that we speak out and put pressure on the Government. We need action on fuel poverty, the cost of living and disparities between rural and urban areas, particularly with regard to Government funding, which is in the Government’s control. I hope and trust that the Minister will give us good news in those regards when he responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on her excellent work as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and her very good exposé today.

My constituency is a mix of rural, semi-rural and urban. Some choose to live in the countryside, some go for more space, some were born and brought up there, but there is a real problem of rural poverty. Some of the hardest-hit areas are former mining areas, places nobody would ever have dreamt of building houses had there not been mines there. We have people from mining families who were born and brought up there, many in old terraced or social housing, and the difficulty for them is that costs escalate, it is hard to find work, transport costs are high and all the local costs, such as buying in the local shop rather than a supermarket in town, are much higher, yet their incomes are not comparable to those of the sort of people who can commute, have two cars and all the rest of it. Rural poverty is a major issue, therefore, particularly in many of the former mining areas of south and west Wales.

On social housing, in the past people were allocated rooms, bedrooms and homes on the basis of what was available in their village. I am pleased that the EFRA Committee has identified the bedroom tax as a major problem for these areas, but I am disappointed in the Government’s response, which repeats a fallacy peddled by Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions: that a person needs only two or three hours’ work at the minimum wage to make up the £15. Worryingly, given that these are DWP Ministers, this completely misunderstands how housing benefit is calculated and the idea of clawback. Things such as housing benefit and tax credits depend on a person’s income, so extra hours do not simply equal extra income because there is a clawback; they do not get the extra housing benefit when they do the extra work, so they actually have to do an awful lot more hours, which obviously is a major problem for people in rural areas, where sometimes even getting the bus to do an extra day’s work can be almost counter-productive. Unless they do six, seven, eight hours’ work, the price of a bus, if they only do three or four hours or have a split shift, makes it completely impractical. There are some particular difficulties in rural areas, therefore, and I am pleased that we are committed to repealing the appalling legislation that has brought in the bedroom tax.

In rural areas there is very little employment. Interestingly, there was recently a campaign to keep open Pontyates fire station, which was run by retained firefighters—people who work in other jobs but get called out when there is an emergency. Obviously, whereas there used to be many miners and other people working in the villages and valleys, some of those areas now have nobody there in the daytime, because people commute out. One of the problems facing the fire station, which I am pleased to say we convinced the fire authority to keep open, is that it now needs a major recruitment campaign to identify people it can train up as retained firefighters. That is symptomatic of the lack of working-age adults in the community during the day.

That brings me to the issue of transport out of the villages and how much more difficult that is for people in rural areas. As more and more people have acquired cars, it has become even more difficult because bus services have become less and less viable. If it were not for the pensioners with their passes, some buses would not have any passengers on them. That is a major issue we have to consider, particularly when transport costs make it difficult for people to take up work opportunities.

Rural areas face much higher fuel bills—both types of fuel: the fuel people put into their vehicle, if they have one, and the fuel they use to heat their home. As hon. Members have said, there is much less choice in rural areas. If someone is not on mains gas, they cannot benefit from dual fuel deals, and many areas in my constituency are not on mains gas and so face either higher oil prices or even higher coal prices. On liquid petroleum gas, there are real problems with tied deals, where groups of houses have to order and switch at the same time, which raises competition issues. How can anyone escape from the provider they are forced to take on when they move into a property? I raised this matter with the former Member Chris Huhne and with the regulator, but it was not entirely sorted out. We need a regulator that can deal with these off-grid issues, which is something Labour is committed to doing. As was mentioned, Wales also has particularly high electricity costs—electricity usage in rural areas tends to be higher because of the lack of gas, and again, a tough new regulator could look into that and make much sharper recommendations.

I welcome Labour’s decision that the winter fuel allowance should be paid earlier, and if we get into government, we will certainly implement that proposal. It is important that people be able to buy when prices are low in the summer months and prepare for the winter, but of course, the Government have cut the winter fuel allowance—we had forgotten that. One of the very early cuts, it took £100 off the over-80s’ allowance and £50 off the over-60s’ allowance. It is a significant cut that has affected many people, particularly in rural areas, over the past few years, as prices have rocketed.

I wish to repeat my dismay at the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which was supported by the Farmers Union of Wales because it provided a framework for settling disputes and enabling farmers to calculate how much to pay neighbours, friends and relatives—people it is sometimes difficult to bargain with—for the work they did. Furthermore, there was its “standard of accommodation” clause for workers working on agricultural premises. Especially disappointing have been the Government’s efforts to prevent Wales from retaining an equivalent board. Having spent £150,000 going to the Supreme Court to dispute Wales’ right to pass the byelaw legislation, they have spent more money this year going to court over the board. All this could have been easily sorted out through discussions between the Welsh Government and the Government here and need not have cost the taxpayer all that money. It is a real shame, particularly as it obviously went against the will of people in Wales.

I turn now to Royal Mail. In my Christmas visit to Royal Mail, it was interesting to learn that the big rush now takes place in November, not December, because so many people shop on the internet. The preference for internet shopping is even higher in rural areas. I was told that proportionately, more packages were going to rural areas than to urban areas, because obviously—it all makes sense—if it costs someone too much to get in the car and drive to the shops, they will be more tempted to go on the internet and pay the postage costs. But, of course, those postage costs are also an important issue for rural businesses, many of which rely on postal services, particularly where internet access is not as fast as it might be.

It is worrying, therefore, that with the privatisation of Royal Mail, we might see the erosion of the universal service obligation. Moya Greene has openly said, “Well, in Canada, a delivery once every two or three days is sufficient in rural areas.” Given that she is the head of Royal Mail, we can see the direction of travel, and it is worrying because it could affect the many rural businesses that depend on Royal Mail. The other problem is whether Royal Mail will keep its link with the post office network, because without that link, the network will be much weakened. While I welcome a recent announcement on safeguarding several rural post offices in my constituency, others have not benefited from any safeguard.

Whatever issue we are considering, right across the board, it is important to think about the impact on people in rural areas. We must continue, time and again, to look at how to decentralise our employment opportunities—whether it be through better broadband or investment in small villages and communities— and we must not let everything become centralised. Decentralisation is the key to building more prosperous rural communities.

Flooding

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. DCLG Ministers obviously played a key part in our Cobra meetings, and liaison with relevant local councils was discussed almost on a daily basis. That is a key local government responsibility that has been pursued with vigour by Ministers at the centre.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Lack of communication is one of the major complaints made by people whose public transport arrangements have been disrupted by adverse weather. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the Transport Secretary is doing to demand improvements from public sector and public transport providers, particularly those running stations and airports, so that people are not left for hours without any information whatsoever or have to surge from one platform to another because of conflicting messages? It is simply not good enough for people to be left waiting for hours and hours without any understanding of what is happening.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I entirely agree with her. There is nothing more frustrating for all the entities involved if telephone calls are not received and information is not passed on. That applies to transport organisations, airports, power companies and, obviously, local councils. That is definitely one of the things we will be looking at. People were really exasperated. The power system went out at Gatwick: there were no screens and no public address system, and people were, quite rightly, absolutely furious. That is a clear area that we want to look at. We will make absolutely sure that all the organisations delivering to the public on the ground have a means—and a back-up, which is really important—of receiving calls and getting information out. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

Fly-Grazing of Horses

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; I defer to him on the situation in Scotland. Fly-grazing certainly happens right across England and Wales, including up to the border, so that would seem a sensible consideration.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. In response to the awful problem of fly-grazing and the intimidation of farmers in areas such as mine, the Welsh Government have introduced the Control of Horses (Wales) Bill in an attempt to get consistency right across the country and to give local authorities sweeping powers to deal with the horses immediately, rather than having to wait. Will the hon. Gentleman be seeking similar legislation for England?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Welsh Bill will not make the problem disappear, but it will make dealing with it somewhat easier, which may help to disrupt and discourage sharp practice. The worry, however, is that it may also displace the problem across the border. As I understand it, the Bill cuts the waiting time from 14 days to seven; reverses the burden of proof, so that an owner coming forward must actively prove that they own the horses; and, crucially, increases the options available to those who seize horses. Auction is therefore not the only option. Horses can also be rehomed, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)outlined earlier, or—when necessary in the worst cases, and with sadness—euthanised.

As I said, the Welsh Bill will not make the problem disappear and it is worth reflecting on its root causes. The main reasons seem to be a relatively small number of irresponsible dealers and the excessive breeding of horses. There is an over-supply, with horses changing hands at auction for as little as £5. Following the horsemeat scandal, there is also less abattoir capacity, although given the cost of put-down and disposal, that option is, arguably, unlikely to be high on the list for owners of £5 horses.

All that explains to some extent why horses are abandoned, but it does not explain why dealers come to pick them up again or why they would buy them back at auction. To some extent, dealers perhaps believe that the market will bounce back and that the value of horses will rise again. It also seems that some sections of some communities attach status to the volume ownership of horses.

What, realistically, can be done? Eventually, we need to rebalance the supply of, and demand for, horses. It has been suggested that if there were a market in horsemeat, animals would be better cared for, and there is a great deal of logic in that. However, there is a cultural issue about that in this country, and there is no likelihood any time soon of there being a great appetite for horsemeat.

I do not have the answer, but I suggest to the Minister that we need to find ways to ban irresponsible people who should not own horses from doing so. That is made more difficult because such people may not own the horses directly, but through proxies.

Water Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

That issue is really for the Environment Agency, which works closely with the Highways Agency and local government to ensure that there is no pollution from water that runs off public roads.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I think that this will be the last time that I give way.

[Nia Griffith]

The Secretary of State rightly says that we have discussed flood insurance for a considerable time. I very much welcome the Flood Re programme, but why is there not more detail in the Bill, and why will so much of it be pushed aside and dealt with as statutory instruments, when so many hon. Members want to discuss the detail more fully?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady takes rather a churlish attitude, as her Government did absolutely nothing to replace the statement of principles, despite knowing perfectly well that it would run out in June 2013. We have been involved in extremely detailed negotiations but, as she knows, the subject is very complex. I entirely agree that it would have been ideal to have detailed clauses ready in time for the Bill; sadly, they are not ready. She is, however, rather critical of those who may be members of the Committee. If she is lucky, she might get on to the Committee, because it will be able to debate those clauses in exhaustive detail.

Our preferred approach, which is known as Flood Re, will limit the amount that high-risk households have to pay on the flood insurance element of their premiums and excesses. The effective limit on the premium would vary according to council tax band, rising for more expensive properties, which means that benefits will be targeted towards lower-income households. Insurers have agreed to continue to meet their commitments under the 2008 statement of principles until the Bill has passed through Parliament and Flood Re has been set up.

Although Flood Re remains our preferred approach, we are seeking reserve powers to provide affordable cover if it should prove unworkable or prices in a free market prove unacceptable. Having a fall-back means that customers can have confidence that the issue is being addressed. All Government policies go through a rigorous economic impact assessment, but that cannot always represent the full range of benefits, such as the value of reducing the uncertainty for households over whether they will be able to afford flood insurance. Our preferred option, Flood Re, may require me to provide a ministerial direction. If that is the case, I will be happy to do so.

I am pleased that there is cross-party support for our proposed approach. There will be a fair deal for householders and taxpayers, and better choice for flood insurance customers. I am particularly grateful to the Association of British Insurers and the rest of the insurance industry for their co-operation and work in developing a sensible solution for homes that are at flood risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and would like to thank both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for their kind words about the work that my colleagues and I have done on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We must have done something right, as no fewer than four of our erstwhile colleagues serve on either the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. We shall obviously continue to maintain our rule of scrutiny with ever-increasing vigilance.

Today is the anniversary of the floods in Malton, Old Malton, Norton, Brawby and elsewhere in my constituency. In fact, I had to take a 10-mile detour because there was a lake outside my office, which I could not access as I normally would. The floods started in November and went on, intermixed with snow, until about March or April. It is therefore timely that we debate the Water Bill today. There is much in it to commend. It has been a long time in progress and, as the hon. Lady said, there remains a great deal of unfinished business from the Pitt review, the Walker review and the Cave review and, indeed, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The largest and most significant recent development since 2007 has been surface water flooding. It is a new threat, particularly with water running off the road in just about every constituency of every Member who has spoken in the debate thus far.

[Nia Griffith]

Given that the Flood Re scheme does not apply to properties built after 1 January 2009, does the hon. Lady agree that planning authorities need to be ever more vigilant not only in refusing to build on floodplains but in avoiding the knock-on effects of building in certain places that can have devastating effects on existing properties?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for the intervention, but I think the hon. Lady misses the point that so many other people do. Water running off the road in this way is a new development. While the water is on the surface of the road, it is the responsibility of the highways authorities, whether it be the Highways Agency, the county council or the unitary council. As soon as that water runs off the road and goes into a combined sewer, it most frequently becomes the responsibility of the water company.

I believe that the Government should look at the possibility of creating a statutory responsibility on highways authorities—and should be supported by the whole House in this—for surface water while it is on the road. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) mutters under his breath, “What will the cost be?” I do not care what it will be: if we are to have sustainable drainage systems, we have to look at creating a system that will retain the surface water on the road and stop it going into the combined drains and sewers. That has been happening since 2007, for nearly seven years. Surface water has been mixing with sewage and coming into homes, such as the home of Mr and Mrs Hinds, causing health-related and very antisocial problems. Successive Governments have failed to deal with the issue, but I believe that the Bill presents us with a unique opportunity to sort it out.

According to the Environment Agency, 2.4 million properties in England are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, 1 million of those properties are at risk of surface water flooding, and a further 2.8 million properties are at risk of surface water alone. The agency estimated that the cost of the 2012 floods was £600 million. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need not just to grow the economy, but to limit the damage caused to it by floods.

It is regrettable that the sustainable drainage system that was envisaged in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has still not been implemented. I understand that discussions are taking place and that it is all very difficult, but we must get our heads around this. It is not impossible, although the difficult aspects may take a little longer to address. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to rise to the challenge, and to introduce SUDS before April next year. It is unacceptable for my constituency and others elsewhere in the country to face a possible flood threat this very week because we have not put secondary legislation on to the statute book.

I am at my wits’ end because we have still not implemented the Pitt recommendation that the automatic right to connect should be removed. Sustainable drains are a significant aspect of that. The Environment Agency is already a statutory consultee, but we have not accepted that water companies should have the same status. I believe that they should be able to say, frankly and honestly, that in the case of major developments, there should be no ability to connect without a significant new investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Two weeks ago I went to Lewa in northern Kenya where the situation is shocking—since I have been there a number of elephants have been killed. Ivory is being sold at $2,000 a kilo and rhinoceros horn is selling at $65,000 a kilo. We offered immediate help to the rangers who are working very bravely there, so that some of our paratroopers could help train them. We are organising a conference at Lancaster house in February to which a whole number of nations from right across the world will be invited, in order to enforce better, to reduce demand and to end up with sustainable alternative activity in these countries.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T3. A few weeks ago we asked the Secretary of State about plans to take helpful food additives out of flour. What are the results of those plans, and is he thinking of looking at any other foods and taking away things that we know can help people? We do not want people to suffer because they are not getting the things they need.

Badger Vaccines

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Morris]

I would like to see similar programmes rolled out nationally.

I must make some progress. The latest parliamentary report was published by the all-party group on dairy farmers, which was established by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The group had 250 members, of whom 70 were Labour MPs, and the report recommended a badger cull. Research done under the previous Government suggested that the cull will reduce bovine TB by 16%. Obviously, that is a good thing, but we must work towards eradicating TB completely. From what I can see, a vaccination programme for both cattle and badgers is the only way to ensure that. I do not want to dwell on the need to vaccinate cattle and the problems that that would raise, but it is worth flagging up that, if we can do that in a cost-effective manner, we should.

A BCG is available for badgers, which is not unlike the injection most of us had at school. The concern about it is that the need to trap and tag badgers in order to deliver it effectively can make it expensive, as we have discussed. There seems to be widespread agreement, therefore, that we need an effective oral vaccination, and I again invite the Minister to comment on research and development and the progress in that field. It is worth pointing out that, this week, a National Farmers Union briefing was fully in favour of work on vaccines, while DEFRA is undertaking a survey of the number of badgers in the UK, which shows that there is common ground between both sides, even if that is not obvious at first.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

rose—

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

rose—

[David Morris]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on the work that they have done to date on introducing badger vaccines? Will he urge his colleagues in the Government to work closely with the Welsh Government in order to make such progress?

[David Morris]

That is a helpful intervention, and I shall do so at all opportunities given to me.

Common Agricultural Policy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Very briefly, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I can confirm that I am not in receipt of any European funds at the moment.

Quite clearly this debate will have to be curtailed. The key principles set out in 2011 were high sounding and were certainly things that we would support—for instance, better targeted income support, greening measures, support for young farmers, measures to stimulate the rural economy and simpler, more efficient CAP funding. We certainly want to see those things, but it is the transition that worries me most. Because of how we did things in Wales under the last set of changes—we kept a stronger historical element than in England—we have a bigger change to make. I pay tribute to Alun Davies, the Welsh Government Minister, who has had a considerable conversation with farmers in Wales. The Welsh Government have stated that they would like a much longer transition period—ideally 10 years rather than five, but if that is not possible, at least seven—to ensure that farmers do not go out of business because of sudden, cliff-edge changes.

That is important, because when a farmer goes out of business, it is not just a catastrophe for that farmer and his or her family and a change in their way of life; it also has a detrimental effect on the rural economy, food production and our food security. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult to re-start. We all know from when we have talked about things such as foot and mouth how difficult it is to re-stock, but to re-start altogether—to go into farming, build up expertise again and build up generations of breeding to get the best animals possible—is extremely difficult these days and takes a long time, so we do not want a sudden, mass exodus. We want a cushioned transition to ensure that we do not have casualties.

The Farmers Union of Wales is absolutely right to say that the current Euroscepticism is extremely worrying. Just as we do not want to see farmers thrown out of business because of an ill-thought-out transition, we do not want them to have trouble when they go to the bank, under the shadow of our possible departure from the EU and a sudden drop in their income. We do not want farmers to have to fight for funds to invest in our food production. We do not want them suddenly finding themselves unable to encourage their sons and daughters into farming because no one can see a future in it or because they are so worried about the changes in income that might ensue if we pulled out of the EU. I therefore hope that Government Members will be able to influence some of their colleagues who are making these unhelpful noises and will ensure that Britain is at the heart of the negotiations in Europe so that we get a good deal for Britain, a smooth transition and the best possible help for our farmers in future.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and her team on the very thorough work they have done in this report. I also want to take the opportunity to express my concerns about the Government’s commitment to reversing bee decline, particularly in the light of the decision to vote against an EU-wide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides.

The need for action to reverse bee decline is highly urgent. All species of bee in the UK, including wild bumble and solitary species as well as managed honey bees, are suffering steep decline. In the last century, the UK has lost 20 species of bee and 47 surviving species are considered to be vulnerable or endangered. Such a rapid decline in bee populations, not just in the UK but across the world, poses a serious threat to global food production, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has just mentioned.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that about a third of all plants or plant products eaten by humans are dependent on bee pollination. The vital importance of bees to our environment and economy has long been known to the experts, but the critical role of our natural pollinators is only beginning to gain a wider appreciation.

Imaginative national campaigns, such as the Friends of the Earth campaign for a bee action plan, have had an impact in informing people about bee decline and gathering momentum for a comprehensive strategy from the Government. It is clear that the importance of the issue has also hit home in countries such as France and Italy. Italy is not always known for its interest in the environment, but it has led the way in banning certain types of pesticide before the moratorium was voted on by the EU.

For those of us who have been waiting for the Government to step up to the mark and action a comprehensive plan to reverse the ruinous decline in the UK’s bee population, the recent decision by Ministers to vote against the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides came as a blow. Thankfully for the bee population, the weight of support for the ban among other EU member states enabled the European Commission to proceed with a two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, but the UK’s action confirmed the Government’s fundamental misunderstanding of their responsibility on the issue and betrayed a worrying lack of insight into where their priorities should lie.

DEFRA Ministers are hiding behind the need for what they call “clearer proof” of harm to bees caused by neonicotinoids. Indeed, they attempted to discredit the findings of the European Food Safety Agency, which concluded that the insecticides represented a “high acute risk” to honey bees and other pollinators, by pointing out that they were based on the results of lab tests rather than “field evidence”. There were those that hoped that by capitalising on the difficulty of obtaining field evidence they could get away with maintaining the status quo.

The UK field study cited by DEFRA Ministers as proof that neonicotinoids did not pose a risk to bees was pronounced hopelessly inadequate by EFSA. The bumblebee hives intended as controls in the experiment had been contaminated by neonicotinoids, and the study was found to be deficient in a large number of other ways. EFSA also expressed pointed concern about the manner in which the authors had

“elaborated and interpreted the study results to reach their conclusions”.

Needless to say, the study was brushed hastily under the carpet and Ministers were forced to stop touting it as sufficient proof that a ban was unnecessary, but the disregard for suggestive evidence that neonicotinoids cause harm and the massaging of scientific evidence to suit current policy causes real concern. Most troubling is that the Government have completely missed the point: in this situation, given the potential truly devastating effects of bee decline, it is the Government’s duty to act with appropriate caution—a duty they have utterly failed to recognise. In other words, DEFRA Ministers must apply the precautionary principle, as set out in the 1992 United Nations Rio declaration and the Lisbon treaty. It is not for the Government to entertain a value-based preference for false negatives—a desperate willingness to conclude that neonicotinoid pesticides are safe when they might not be. As the Environmental Audit Committee report states,

“economic factors should not blur environmental risk assessment and risk management, where the protection of people and the environment must be paramount.”

The sense of disappointment in the Government’s actions on bee-harming neonicotinoids is compounded by the fact that this is exactly the sort of issue—one that has far-reaching and potentially devastating environmental and economic implications—that we expect the UK to champion. We of all countries have always had a reputation for thorough scientific research, real concern for the environment and respect for the precautionary principle, and that the Government did not decide to take a proactive leading role in tackling bee decline related to pesticide use reflects very poorly on our nation’s attitude to environmental issues and severely damages the UK’s reputation for diligence and responsibility regarding the environment. The Government have not lived up to expectations. They should have had the foresight to lead; instead, they have allowed themselves to be beaten around by the big companies—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clearly—and left us trailing behind.

Now the Government must seize the chance to make a fresh start. The two-year moratorium on the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides on crops attractive to honey bees will provide an opportunity for DEFRA Ministers to carry out careful and impartial monitoring of the effect on bee populations of the removal of pesticides. That will be a positive action that demonstrates the UK’s appreciation of the seriousness of bee decline and its commitment to working to reverse it. It will also demonstrate the UK’s support for the work of the European Commission, which also plans to use the two-year suspension period to review new scientific evidence on how pollinators are faring more generally.

The Government must also overhaul their national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides. It was necessary to take legal advice on whether the action plan complied with the minimum standards of the EU directive, which strongly suggests that the Government failed to see the directive as an opportunity to address the wider issue of pesticide use. In fact, UK use of insecticides on crops pollinated by bees remains on a steady upward trend. The Government must abandon their irresponsible, lacklustre approach and rewrite the action plan to incentivise farmers to use non-pesticide-based methods of pest control, making sure to include targets, measures and timetables for the reduction of pesticide use overall.

The Government must also recognise their duty to apply the precautionary principle. Given what is at stake, DEFRA must commit itself to erring on the side of caution in matters relating to bee decline and in future complex matters relating to the protection of people and the environment. The Select Committee observed:

“There is no compelling economic or agricultural case for neonicotinoid use in private gardens and on amenities such as golf courses”

and said that that might provide DEFRA Ministers with an immediate opportunity to prove their commitment to the precautionary principle.

It is time for the Government to turn themselves around and to move away from their disappointing behaviour on neonicotinoid insecticides by accepting the European moratorium with grace and applying themselves to tackling the harm caused to bees by pesticides. They also need to look more widely at their policy on bees and work to formulate and introduce a comprehensive bee action plan to save threatened habitats, promote bee-friendly farming and construction practices, and guide councils and the public on how they can protect our nation’s vital pollinators.

On pesticides and on all these measures, the UK Government must take the lead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that a UK-wide moratorium on the three neonicotinoid pesticides is fully in place by the deadline of 1 December? Will the Minister prove his commitment to countering the bee decline by setting quantitative targets for the reduction of all pesticide use and working hard to encourage the use of alternative pest management methods, as the EU directive requires? Will the Minister follow the example of the Labour Welsh Government’s draft action plan for pollinators, which sets out measures to help all bee species across all policy areas, including farming, conservation and planning? If so, when will he implement a UK-wide bee action plan? I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I will come back to the specific issue of neonicotinoids in a moment. The moratorium is in place, so we will, of course, fully comply with it. We do not not comply with decisions of that kind. I will return to the evidence, because it is a critical issue.

I repeat that bees are essential to the health of our natural environment and the prosperity of our farming industry. The “Biodiversity 2020” document has been mentioned. We have set ourselves the challenge of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have put a landscape scale approach to biodiversity conservation at the heart of “Biodiversity 2020”. It is vital that that approach is effective in helping to conserve our most threatened species.

Nature improvement areas are beginning to make a difference for species on the ground. The 12 Government-funded NIAs are by no means the sum total of our ambitions. We want to see that approach rolled out more widely by enthusiasts across the country. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is seeing exactly that in her city. We want that to be extended and it is clearly already happening.

We want to make environmental stewardship more effective. As the House knows, we are in the process of negotiating CAP reform. It is not clear what the outcomes will be. We do not know the extent to which greening measures will be in pillar 1 or pillar 2, or the exact recipe that will emerge from our decisions on agri-environmental schemes that derive from pillar 2 or voluntary modulation. This matter is a key consideration in that context and I will certainly be pressing for it in the outcome.

[Nia Griffith]

The European Scrutiny Committee has requested a debate on CAP reform. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be scheduled?

[Mr Heath]

I am responsible for a large number of things in my Department, but the scheduling of House business is not one of them. In my previous post, I might have been able to give the hon. Lady an answer, but in my current post I cannot. To be honest, now would not be the best time to have that debate because we are just reaching what we hope will be a conclusive meeting of the Council of Ministers. After that, we will have a much clearer idea of the outcomes and how they will be effected in the UK.

We recognise that there is still a need for targeted conservation action for our most threatened species. Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed to help with projects to support priority species, such as the short-haired bumblebee. Many Members have made the point that we are talking not just about the honey bee, but about many other native bee species and other non-bee pollinators. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators. He has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach could bring.

We will continue with our wider work to understand and counter the various factors that harm bees and other pollinators. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser and Ministers have met a number of interested parties to discuss that work, including non-governmental organisations. We will seek to host discussions with other stakeholders over the summer.

As I have said, there are many things that we do not yet understand about the reductions in pollinator populations. There are many major factors, including the varroa mite, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), foulbrood and the undoubted effects of climate change and environmental and ecological changes in this country. That is why some experts are very unclear as to the quantifiable effect of pesticides. The British Beekeepers Association keeps an open mind on that, as do we. We want to know what the connections are and to see the evidence.

Let us return to the issue of pesticides. As we heard in the debate, the European Commission recently adopted a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on crops that are “attractive to bees” and on some cereal crops. The ban also covers amateur use, so the Government do not need to bring in an extension.

It is documented that we did not support action, the reason being that we had urged the Commission to complete a full assessment of the available scientific evidence, taking into account new field research that we had carried out. Let us talk about that because it is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked whether we reject laboratory evidence, but of course we do not; it is extraordinarily important. However, we would like some coherence between what we see in the laboratory and what we see in field trials. That does not make field trials the only thing that matter, but such a correlation is not presently there.

From laboratory tests we are clear that neonicotinoids have a toxicity for bees. We do not know, however, what the exposure is in a natural environment, and the two things go together. Many things are toxic but do not create a deleterious effect in the field simply because the exposure is too low. That is where we must do a lot more work, and that is exactly where we are commissioning it. We were clear that the work done by FERA was by no means a satisfactory field trial. We never pretended that it was; it had to be done quickly to meet a timetable—set not by us, but by others—to give at least some indication of whether that correlation was there. Incidentally, I will not accept criticism of FERA scientists on that basis. They are extremely good and do their work in a totally dispassionate and independent way on the best scientific principles. They were asked to do a quick piece of work—which they did—and that is why it was not peer reviewed, as would be normal practice. We felt it was important to put the matter in the hands of the Commission, which was about to make a decision on a highly contentious subject.

I make no apologies for recognising that there is, of course, a strong imperative to look at evidence that suggests a toxic consequence and, where possible, to take a precautionary approach to these matters. However, a precautionary approach is not as two-dimensional as sometimes suggested and must take into account the consequences of the action in question. The hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned the economic consequences, and of course that is a factor, although not an overriding one.

Of far more concern is a point also raised by hon. Members about alternative pesticides that are fully legal under EU law and that it would be perfectly proper for people to use, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or carbamates, because the potential is that they would be even more damaging to the pollinator population. That concern does not mean that we should not take action against neonicotinoids if the evidence is clear that they are causing problems in field conditions, but it was not unreasonable to say that the paucity of field-trial evidence was astonishing.

I do not have portfolio responsibility for this matter, but when I looked at it with a view sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North was saying, I was amazed at how little evidence there was in field conditions, which I think exposes a failure of the scientific world to address the problem. I hope that we can play our part in persuading others across the European Union to take a more rational view of where we concentrate our research so that we get the evidence we need, and that is what we are trying to do. Although our assessment is that the risk to the bee population from neonicotinoids, as currently used, is low, we may be wrong and evidence may come forward from trials that shows otherwise. If such evidence is there, we shall, of course, accept it, but we need more complete evidence than we currently have.

The European Commission has committed itself to a review of evidence by 2015, which we want to be founded firmly on a strengthened scientific evidence base. We will play our part in that and are currently talking about the design of field trials that might be in place during the moratorium period, so that we can gather evidence, not just on the honey bee, but on other bee species as well. The FERA research was on the bumblebee rather than the honey bee. It is important that we understand how other species are affected.