Thames Tideway Tunnel

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I wish to update the House on progress on the Thames Tideway Tunnel since the written ministerial statement—3 November 2011, Official Report, column 41WS—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).

In that statement the Government reaffirmed their support for Thames Water’s plans to build a tunnel to reduce the amount of untreated waste water being discharged into the River Thames. We also stated that while the private sector could and should deliver the project, the Government were willing in principle to provide contingent financial support for exceptional project risks where this offered best value for money for customers and taxpayers.

Following due consideration the Secretary of State has determined to exercise his power today to issue a Thames Tideway Tunnel project specification notice and a Thames Tideway Tunnel project preparatory work notice made under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (“SIP regulations” ). These notices will be available on the gov.uk website shortly.

This action follows the consultation undertaken from 4 December 2013 to 6 January 2014 on the draft reasons for specifying the project under the SIP regulations as a specified infrastructure project and the draft reasons for issuing a preparatory work notice for Thames Water. On 23 April 2014 we published a summary of responses to these two consultations.

The specification notice prevents Thames Water from undertaking the Thames Tideway Tunnel and requires it to put the project out to tender by running a competitive procurement for an infrastructure provider (“IP”) that is separate from Thames Water. The specification notice contains the activities that the IP has to undertake and includes the project’s financing, design, construction, operation and ownership. The preparatory work notice permits or requires Thames Water to undertake certain activities of a preparatory nature in connection with the specified infrastructure project.

In addition to these notices, we have also published an additional two notices: a notice setting out the Secretary of State’s reasons for specifying the project and a notice setting out his reasons for issuing the preparatory work notice.

In summary, the competitive procurement of a separate IP will help ensure value for money by providing an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of the project are appropriate and reasonable. If the project were to be delivered solely by Thames Water then this competitive element for determining and helping drive down the financing costs of the project would be absent. A separate entity that undertakes the project will also isolate the project risks within that entity. That will both reduce the risk that the costs of delivering Thames Water’s other services to customers will increase due to the risk profile of the project, and ensure that any Government financial support is focused on the project.

Thames Water is permitted or required to undertake certain preparatory work in relation to the specified project where this makes sense for the project timetable or to reduce interface risks. This preparatory work has a similar risk profile to Thames Water’s existing business.

Following the procurement process, the economic regulator Ofwat will consider designating and licensing the successful bidder as the project’s IP. This is likely to be in mid-2015. Assuming the IP is licensed, it will then become subject to a modified regulatory regime which is broadly similar to the regime which applies to water and sewerage companies.

Following further careful consideration, we have also confirmed that a support package from the Government is necessary to enable the project to attract private sector finance at a cost that is reasonable for customers. In structuring this support package we have been mindful of the need to keep the burden on the taxpayer to the absolute minimum required for the project to be viable.

Through the Government support package, the Government will take on some of the low probability but high impact risks the project faces during the construction phase. If these risks do not materialise, there will be no exposure for the taxpayer. The package provides support in the following five scenarios:

where an event during construction leads to an insurance claim that exceeds the limits of the IPs’ insurance cover, the Government would meet the liability above that limit. In addition, if certain insurance cover becomes unavailable in the market and is essential for the project to continue. Government will consider providing that cover;

should the IP be unable to access debt capital markets as a result of national or international economic or political events, the Government would be prepared to provide a short-term loan on commercial terms. This would help the project to continue during any period of disruption in the financial markets, for example like those experienced in 2008;

where exceptionally large cost overruns occur the Government would be prepared to invest equity in the project to enable it to continue to completion where this remains viable. The IP would be incentivised to manage costs and so avoid this situation occurring and to seek further private equity before calling on the Government. However, if the Government were required to invest, appropriate measures would be put in place to ensure taxpayers received value for money;

the Government support package also makes provision for the Government to discontinue the project and pay compensation to debt and equity investors in certain circumstances. For example, where the IP requests an investment of Government equity due to exceptional cost overruns, the Government would have the option of discontinuing and paying compensation rather than providing equity; and

the final element of the Government support package is a commitment from the Government that should the IP go into special administration and remain there beyond 18 months, the Government will either make an offer to purchase the IP or discontinue the project.

The Government support package is subject to state-aid approval from the EU Commission.

Following the Government’s decision to specify the project, we expect Thames Water to initiate the procurement process for the IP by publishing a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Competitions for the three main construction contracts for the project are already under way.

Food and Environment Research Agency

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am announcing today that DEFRA is launching a procurement exercise to find a joint venture partner for DEFRA’s Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera).

Fera is a leader in its field with an international reputation for protecting plant and bee health and food safety. A joint venture will protect and enhance its scientific capabilities in the long term, and free it from public sector constraints. This will give Fera the opportunity to access new markets and grow its non-Government business, which it cannot do in its current capacity.

Fera provides a range of high-quality scientific services that are essential to Government, with key capability in the areas of plant and bee health, and food and environmental safety, as well as providing a range of services to commercial customers, the European Union, and overseas Governments.

Fera already plays an important role in the agri-food market. Its capabilities, brand and pedigree mean it is well placed to play an even greater role in what is a very important and growing, global market. The essential statutory functions that Fera provides are out of scope of the joint venture and will remain within the DEFRA network.

As I announced in October, the bee health inspectors, the plant health and seed inspectorate, the GM inspectorate and UK Government decontamination service, all currently within Fera, will remain in the DEFRA network, due to their enforcement and statutory functions.

These functions will come together with the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) to form a new agency by October 2014. This will ensure plant and animal health inspectorate functions can be delivered more effectively in the future.

It is clear from our market exercise in November that there is potential interest from the market, keen to bid for the opportunity of becoming a joint venture partner with DEFRA for Fera.

Procuring the right external partner, with the necessary commercial expertise and experience will help Fera to maximise its market potential and grow its non-Government revenue. This would ensure that DEFRA achieves its long-term aims for a more resilient and thriving Fera and that Government continue to have access to the high-quality scientific capability it requires.

I believe that Fera offers a potential partner a unique opportunity to work with DEFRA to develop and enhance what is an internationally recognised scientific organisation. I am also confident that a joint venture would offer new opportunities to Fera’s staff, who are essential to the continued success of the business going forward.

I also informed the House yesterday that DEFRA is publishing a new plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain, which sets out our strengthened approach to plant health. I believe that the joint venture will provide us with an opportunity to secure and grow the scientific capability we will need over the coming years to deliver that strategy.

I aim to make a final decision as to the preferred bidder (and service commencement date) for the joint venture by the end of this calendar year, once the procurement has been completed, when I will make a further announcement.

Plant Biosecurity Strategy

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I would like to update the House on the progress that my Department has made in implementing the recommendations of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce. This is further to my written ministerial statements of 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, 16 July, Official Report, column 78WS, and 12 December, Official Report, column 53WS, in which I accepted the recommendations of the taskforce.

Today my Department has published a plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain which sets out the new, strengthened approach to plant biosecurity my Department, together with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, has adopted in order to meet the taskforce recommendations. The strategy is being published alongside an update on operational activity to manage tree pests and disease, including Chalara fraxinea (ash dieback).

The strategy is based on the principles that action taken must be risk-based; to make the most effective use of resources, and that Government, industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), landowners and the public must all be more aware of plant health risks and know what they can do to reduce and mitigate them, therefore playing their part to ensure plant biosecurity is enhanced. It sets out high-level plans for strengthening existing risk-based activity and developing new and innovative approaches such as a publicly-available risk register and novel approaches to detection and diagnosis of pests and pathogens, which will include:

Pre-border activities to reduce the risk of pests and diseases arriving here from overseas, including our work with countries beyond the EU to drive up standards;

Activities at the border to reduce the risk of pests and diseases entering the EU and the UK;

Action inland to step up surveillance and improve preparedness.

Work has already commenced to deliver the activity within this strategy, with the UK plant health risk register having been published on 21 January 2014, and Professor Nicola Spence having taken up the post of chief plant health officer on 1 April.

The strategy will be underpinned by a robust evidence base and a programme of work to identify and address capability and capacity issues. My officials have conducted extensive public engagement over the past six months on the content of the strategy and will continue to work with those interested on its implementation.

A copy of the strategy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Bovine TB

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on bovine tuberculosis.

Today I am publishing the Government’s strategy for achieving officially TB-free status for England. This disease is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK, and the crisis facing our cattle farmers, their families and communities cannot be overstated. It is a devastating zoonosis that threatens our cattle industry and presents risks to other livestock and wildlife species such as badgers, domestic pets and humans.

In 1979 only 0.01% of British cattle tested as infected. The disease has now spread extensively from infected pockets in the south-west, and the number of new herd breakdowns has doubled every nine years. In the last decade we have slaughtered 314,000 otherwise healthy cattle across Great Britain in our attempt to control the disease. In 2013 more than 6.2 million TB tests were performed in England leading to the slaughter of 26,603 cattle. One quarter of herds in the south-west and the west midlands were placed under movement restrictions at some point, and in the last decade the issue has cost the taxpayer £500 million.

If we do not control TB, the bill will rise to £1 billion over the next decade. It is vital that farmers, vets, non-governmental organisations and politicians work together to free England of TB. The value of this industry is £6.6 billion, and we want to ensure a thriving cattle sector that maintains our countryside, trades internationally and delivers economic growth.

The current surveillance and control scheme is based on the traditional approach applied across Europe: routine skin testing of cattle, removal and slaughter of test reactors combined with post-mortem surveillance at slaughter, and movement controls placed on infected herds. In the absence of a major wildlife reservoir, that approach has been successful in allowing many EU countries and regions to achieve officially TB-free status. The same approach has reduced the spread of the disease in areas where TB is established, but on its own that is not enough.

Where there is a reservoir of disease in wildlife, tackling TB will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. We are clear that culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment. I intend to pursue policies that will reverse the trend well before the end of this decade, so we need a control and eradication strategy with these clear aims at its heart. It must be dynamic, tailored to the sources of disease and the potential for eliminating it. It must adapt as new tools become available.

We must learn the lessons from countries that have succeeded in tackling TB where there has been a reservoir of the disease in wildlife. I have visited Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and the USA. The vital lesson I have taken from these countries is the importance of stringent cattle control measures in combination with tackling the primary wildlife reservoir. Their programmes are either led by industry, or delivered by industry and Government working in partnership, with both parties contributing to the cost. We will need to adapt and apply the key elements of others’ eradication strategies to our countryside. However, the common thread is the sustained application of a control programme that addresses infection in cattle and wildlife.

We already have a robust package of cattle measures, which we have steadily strengthened since 2011. Herds in high-risk areas, and on the edges of those areas, must be tested annually; herds in low-risk areas must be tested every four years. We also have slaughterhouse surveillance. Cattle moving from annual testing herds must be tested before they are moved. Where we find TB, we shut down the herd, slaughter the reactor cattle and carry out intensive testing in the herd and the surrounding herds. We continue to tighten our cattle measures. This year, we have reduced subsidy payments for farmers with overdue TB tests, enhanced measures for dealing with persistent breakdowns, and we recently announced a further tightening of pre-movement testing rules as well as new powers to slaughter cattle that cannot be tested.

For the first time our strategy brings together all the tools we need to tackle the disease, including those currently available and those in development, such as a cattle vaccine. It sets targets by which we can measure progress towards achieving officially TB-free status. The strategy will simply not work without addressing the reservoir of TB infection in badgers. The option of using injectable badger vaccine has been available since 2010. However, the evidence shows that about a third of badgers in TB hot-spot areas are infected. The vaccine does not cure them and they continue to spread the disease. We have some evidence that the vaccine provides protection to a proportion of uninfected badgers, but the vaccination needs to be repeated annually, and this presents many practical problems. However, while the injectable vaccine is far from perfect, it may help protect uninfected badgers away from the TB hot spots. That is why I am proposing a scheme for vaccination projects around the edge of the most badly affected parts of the country, in an attempt to create a buffer zone of TB immunity to stop the disease spreading further.

The first year of two four-year culls took place in Gloucestershire and Somerset last autumn. These were pilots designed to test whether the controlled shooting of free-ranging badgers is safe, humane and effective. An independent panel of experts was appointed to assess the pilots. I am extremely grateful for their work. I have today placed the panel’s report, our response to it and our broader strategy in the Library of the House. We have always been clear that there would be lessons to be learned from the first year of these four-year culls. Having read and considered the report, we shall now work to implement the panel’s recommendations.

The panel is confident that controlled shooting, when carried out in accordance with best practice guidance, poses no threat to public safety, even in the presence of local protest. This is an appropriate point to put on record my thanks to the cull companies and contractors who put so much effort into the culls. They went out night after night to battle TB, often in dreadful conditions, and often facing disgraceful intimidation from some of the more extreme protesters.

The pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death. The panel made a number of key recommendations for improving the overall standards of accuracy and field craft of contractors, including training and assessment. I accept these recommendations and we are working to implement them with Natural England and the cull companies.

On effectiveness, we already know from the figures we made public last year that the culls did not make as much progress as we hoped. This is confirmed by the independent expert panel, which has given its views on why this might have happened. Three of the 10 areas in the badger culling trials between 1998 and 2005 also got off to a slow start, but by the end of the trial they had contributed to a reduction in TB. That is what we expect to happen here, especially after the panel’s recommendations for improving the effectiveness of culling are put into action.

The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place. We will work with Natural England and the industry to implement the changes. The cull companies will adapt their operational plans to ensure better consistency of coverage in the cull areas. They will incorporate more extensive training and real-time monitoring of cull effectiveness and humaneness by Natural England. We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas. I am also announcing a trial of a comprehensive farm-level risk management programme throughout the cull areas over the next three years. This will be available to all farmers, providing bespoke assessments and advice on how to protect their cattle.

I am keen to develop new techniques to support the strategy. Over this Parliament, we are investing £24.6 million in the development of effective TB vaccines for cattle and badgers. Our scientists are leading the world in the development of a deployable cattle vaccine. In 2013, I agreed with the European Commissioner the work that was needed to develop a viable cattle vaccine. We are designing the large-scale field trials necessary to take this forward. I am committed to meeting the earliest deadline for its implementation, but the need for the field trials and required legislative changes means that a usable cattle vaccine is still many years away. In the future, an oral badger vaccine might address some of the problems of injectable vaccine deployment and serve as a targeted control measure. Some progress has been made, but we do not yet have an oral badger vaccine that is effective. We are also stepping up investment in the development of improved diagnostic tests such as DNA-based technologies, so that we can deploy a targeted approach to identify and remove TB-infected badgers only.

The strategy recognises that achieving officially TB-free status for England will be a long haul. I am confident, however, that it is not beyond industry and Government working in partnership to achieve it for England in the time scales we envisage. My aim is for England to be free of TB by 2038, with healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.

The four-year culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset are pilots, and we always said we would learn lessons from them. It is crucial we get this right. That is why we are taking a responsible approach, accepting recommendations from experts to make the pilots better. Doing nothing is not an option. Bovine TB is a terrible disease that is devastating our cattle and dairy industries, and causing misery for many people in rural communities. We need to do everything we can, as set out in our strategy, to make England TB-free. I commend this statement to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Secretary of State said that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We do not need this constant shouting from Members on both sides of the House, including Opposition Front Benchers. I do not want to hear it from the Government Whips, and I do not want to hear it from the Opposition Front Bench.

[Mr Paterson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The position is very simple. The pilots were set up last year. The hon. Lady asked about the roll-out of our programme. We made clear that we would learn lessons: the IEP report contained some very helpful advice, and we will adopt it. We are acting responsibly by maintaining the two existing cull areas. The hon. Lady mentioned the risk of increasing disease. My chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, has stated emphatically that ending culling in the two existing areas would greatly increase the risk of the disease, and his very strong scientific advice is that it should continue.

As for Wales, I am delighted that there has been a reduction in the disease there. According to the farmers in Wales to whom I have spoken, it may be due to the spike that occurred when annual testing was introduced recently. Given that the vaccination trial has only been taking place for two years in 1.5% of the land in Wales, to attribute it to vaccination is laughable.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of humaneness. The IEP report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died virtually instantly. However, there are clear lessons to be learned on how we can improve humaneness, which we are happy to adopt.

The hon. Lady mentioned the number culled last year. I remind her that during the first year of the randomised badger culling trial that took place under the Government she supported, only 32%, 37% and 39% respectively were culled in three of the trial areas, but in those areas the culls did contribute to disease reduction later on.

The hon. Lady also mentioned cost. We are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We simply must address the disease in cattle and in wildlife, as has happened in every other country to which I referred in my statement. [Interruption.] I have already touched on the subject of Wales and vaccination, but I repeat for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers who are chuntering from a sedentary position that it is not credible to attribute the reduction in Wales to a two-year vaccination programme that took place in 1.5% of the geographical area of Wales.

The hon. Lady came up with a few ideas, and I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on all of them. On badger vaccination, I have announced that we want to establish a buffer zone at the edges of the worst affected areas, because treating healthy badgers with the current badger vaccine—however difficult it is to deploy, given that a third of badgers are trap-shy—may help to build up a buffer zone, and that is worth doing. Sadly, injecting diseased badgers in the hot-spot areas with cattle vaccine will not reduce the incidence of the disease. I think that we agree on that.

The hon. Lady mentioned risk-based trading in connection with for cattle measures. We have already introduced that. I was very clear about this in my statement. If she looks at the strategy, she will see there are considerable new measures there, which are much stricter on cattle risk-based trading. It would be good if the hon. Lady went through our response to the independent panel so she sees that we are adopting its proposals, and went through our strategy, which shows that we are looking to bring in a whole range of tools. She should not just focus on culling of diseased badgers, although that is an important part, as we are bringing in a whole range of other measures, and down the road, as I made clear in the statement, I really do want to get to the position where we are leading the world on developing a cattle vaccine and where, above all, we can get better diagnostic techniques—possibly DNA systems—which can diagnose disease in cattle and in badgers.

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

I welcome the strategy and the fact that the Government are going to implement the panel recommendations. The public will be very alarmed that TB is now spreading through pets, and I hope the Secretary of State can address that. I urge him to give the House an assurance on the date when the field trials will take place and the timetable for the legislative changes, and will he also look favourably on the sterilisation programme which is being developed in my constituency?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her questions. On the development of cattle vaccine, which I think she was asking about, we do not have an immediate timetable when we can start. These are complex, difficult trials and we need to work out, working closely with the European Commission, how we bring them in in practical terms. A major issue is what we do with the animals that may have been treated, because we have to decide whether they can go for human consumption or not.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Like the Secretary of State, I think it is important that the House tries to work together, because whatever happens next spring I suspect the coalition will not exist. [Interruption.] I am certain about it. Will he agree, in keeping with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees, to publish all the scientific advice he has received? I remind him that the code of practice says that only in the exceptional circumstances of matters of national security should it be withheld. It needs to be published, including, for example, the advice the Secretary of State has received on the tiny risks related to pets.

[Mr Paterson]

We are very clear in the document. The hon. Gentleman should read the strategy, as there is a significant amount of information in it, including references to where we have got advice from.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been following the development of vaccines for badgers and cattle and I commend the Secretary of State on continuing that work, but he knows that a test that could identify diseased badgers so we could eliminate them and vaccinate the healthy badgers would really take us forward. Can he tell the House what progress is being made on those matters?

[Mr Paterson]

I think my hon. Friend and I will be in total agreement that it would be a huge change in the whole debate if we could establish some form of polymerase chain reaction technology using DNA where we could identify and differentiate diseased and healthy cattle and, above all, diseased and healthy badgers. We are pressing on with that—we have done a lot of work with Warwick university—because I do think this would change the whole debate, and if we could target culling, it would be so much better and so much quicker and make it more effective.

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

For the sake of the record of the House, can the Secretary of State be clear about the decision relating to the roll-out of the culls? Is the roll-out cancelled or is it scheduled for a further date, and if so, when will the culls be rolled out?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to clarify that, but I thought I made it clear in the statement. What we are saying is that there are clear lessons to be learned from the panel report, and clear lessons in practical terms that we learned from the cull companies, so sensibly we are continuing with the existing two pilots so we can perfect this system of removing diseased wildlife. Once we are happy we have got that system perfected, we will look to a further roll-out. The original intention was to have 10 areas, and we have over 30 expressions of interest from around the country. [Interruption.] Those chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench should not underestimate the desperation in cattle areas and the frustration that we cannot go faster. It is clear from the panel report that we need to perfect this particular method of removing diseased badgers before rolling out further. However, it is emphatically our decision to roll out further once the technique is perfected.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the vaccination programme around infection hot spots, but the skin test is clearly failing as the number of carcases rejected post-slaughter more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 and is increasing again this year. My constituents, such as Simon Cotton, are having cattle which have passed the skin test condemned without compensation at slaughter. The Government are consulting on a risk-based trading strategy which is completely flawed because it is based on the skin test, and the electronic device that Nottingham Trent university is working on is supposed to be three years away. What can the Secretary of State do to save my constituents from the total loss of condemned carcases and having their time wasted on futile consultations and their cats infected, all because we do not have a proper skin test?

[Mr Paterson]

Our proposal is for badger vaccination on the edge of the hot-spot areas. There is no point in vaccinating in the hot spots as, sadly, the animals are already diseased and infected. The idea is to get a buffer zone around the edge.

I do not entirely agree with all my hon. Friend’s comments on what we are doing elsewhere. We are all, sadly, very aware of the ineffectiveness of some of our technology. We know that BCG is not a perfect vaccine, and we are fully aware that the skin test is not a perfect individual animal test, but it is currently the method used in every other country with a major problem of TB in cattle and it does give a broad result, within which other countries have managed to bring this disease down.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

I think people around the country will be really shocked by this statement, not just because it represents a complete disregard of the science and the evidence, but because it is also likely to make bovine TB worse, not better. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will bring this issue back to the House so we can have a vote before it goes any further?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady reacts in such a way. I would stress very clearly that this strategy has been prepared over recent months, after exhaustive consultation.

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady shakes her head. I am sorry, but I have to repeat this: we have consulted very widely across the country, and a very wide number of senior scientists have been involved, and this is endorsed by our chief veterinary officer. We had a vote back last year which endorsed our strategy with a majority of 61 on a substantive motion. This is a broad strategy that was endorsed then, and we are delivering what we promised to the House then.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

On behalf of farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter who have seen decades of work destroyed by this disease, may I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to tackling and eradicating TB? I have had a number of e-mails from worried constituents recently, who are concerned about the reports in the newspapers of TB spreading to cats and domestic animals. Can the Secretary of State tell us what analysis he has done of that and the risks incurred from it?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. As we have seen graphically from the experience in Newbury, this is a disease that does transfer to other species; it is a zoonosis that can be caught by human beings. The Newbury example, where it looks as if the cats had the same spoligotype as cattle—there is not yet a direct link with badgers but it may be that the badgers in that area also have the same type of TB—is a real wake-up call to us all, as it shows this is a deadly serious disease and, as in every other country where they have addressed it, we have to address it not just in cattle but also in wildlife, because we want to have healthy cattle, healthy wildlife and healthy humans.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the Secretary of State said he thought that the independent expert panel’s report contained some “helpful advice”. How does he respond to the panel’s finding that

“culling badgers over a 6-week period by shooting, or by shooting and cage trapping, fails to meet the criteria of effectiveness set out by Defra”?

[Mr Paterson]

We agree with the IEP report that there are lessons to be learned. These were pilots, and we are looking to perfect the techniques for removing diseased animals by controlled shooting and by trapping. There is some very helpful advice in the IEP report, which we intend to take on so that the pilots can be proved to be effective, safe and humane and so that we can roll them out to other parts of the country that are desperate to get on top of TB.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to emphasise the comprehensive eradication strategy, of which the removal of infection in the wildlife in a highly infected area is but a part, albeit a vital one. Will he continue to consider alternatives to free shooting, which has been shown to be vulnerable to disruption? Will he also extend the competition to find a successful diagnostic tool to identify infected setts?

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says, just as I endorsed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). It would be a huge help if we could develop a polymerase chain reaction testing system that could instantly diagnose the disease in cattle and in badgers. It would be tremendous if we could run such tests on milk samples daily, for example, rather than having to use the skin tests, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has pointed out, are inadequate and not all that accurate. It would be a huge help if PCR tests could determine which setts had diseased badgers, so that we could focus on them. We are really pressing on with this; it is a top priority for me.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State is so confident that his strategy will be successful—with respect, he knows that many of us have great doubts about that—why are the Government not paying for it? Why do they expect farmers to contribute towards the £100 million a year costs? The Secretary of State wants the strategy to be successful, and there is more than enough money to pay for it, as well as money for the Treasury to pocket afterwards. Why are farmers being expected to contribute?

[Mr Paterson]

I am looking at examples from across the world. I was in New Zealand last year, where there is a huge cost to the Government from TB, as there is here. Here, we are looking at a bill of £1 billion for the taxpayer. It is clear from examples such as New Zealand that the state working in partnership with farmers has delivered results. It is perfectly obvious that farmers and farmers’ organisations have a huge personal vested interest in getting on top of this disease, and our working with them is the sensible way forward.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to eradicating TB. In Devon, a quarter of the herds are affected by TB, and a third of the badgers are infected with the disease. It has been scientifically proven that half the cases of TB in the endemic areas have been transferred by badgers to cattle. When will more culls take place? Can we put the relevant areas together so that when the lessons have been learned from the two pilot culls, we will be ready to roll out the culls across Devon? Our farmers in Devon are absolutely desperate.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He has been stalwart in defending his constituents and bringing to my personal attention the horrific problem of bovine tuberculosis, particularly in Devon. When I was at the North Devon show, I asked the farming organisations there to start organising. There are 30 areas that have shown an interest in having culls, once we have got the pilots behind us, so my advice to those in Devon is: start organising. Once we have perfected the technique in Somerset and Gloucestershire, I am keen to roll it out because I understand the desperation in areas such as that of my hon. Friend that have such an intensity of disease.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. I commend the Secretary of State’s statement and look forward to his rolling out the exercise across the rest of the United Kingdom, and especially in Northern Ireland. We have seen an increase in bovine TB in my constituency and in County Armagh, which represents a worrying change in the trend. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme involving catching and testing, followed by either culling or injecting, is very expensive? Will he tell us how much money has been set aside for it?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a devolved issue, so it is up to him to discuss elsewhere whether the catch, trap, test and eliminate policy is introduced in Northern Ireland. We are not proposing to do that in England. He makes the valid point, however, that trapping badgers is not easy. We estimate that about a third of badgers are trap-shy, which presents real practical problems for those who are enthusiastic about vaccination.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

In my area, we also have TB in dairy goats, but the farmers involved are not covered by the compensation scheme. Will the Secretary of State consider changing that rule, because it is causing desperation among those farmers?

[Mr Paterson]

I was talking to farming representatives who had come over the border into my own patch last Friday, and I am aware that there is a bad case in Staffordshire involving goats. We need to look at this issue. We have made it clear that we are going to consult on bringing alpacas into the regime, and we should look at goats as well.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We fully agree on the range of measures needed, such as vaccination and pre-movement testing. However, given the failure of the culls to meet effective percentages, even after an extension, and given the risk of perturbation, which has not been addressed today, why will the Secretary of State not transfer the resources that are being wasted on a second round of culling into the vital research that needs to be done on finding the right kinds of testing and vaccination?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady might have misunderstood my earlier comments. The chief veterinary officer is absolutely clear that we have to carry on within the two pilots, because of perturbation. We have absolutely taken that on board. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is happy with our proposals to accelerate our diagnostic work, the work on DNA that we have talked about and the improvements to vaccinations, but she has to respect the fact that every other country that has a reservoir of TB in its wildlife has removed the diseased wildlife. She might regret that, but it is a fundamental part of those other countries’ success.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State and his Department be working in the immediate future with voluntary organisations such as the Dorset Wildlife Trust and the Dorset Badger Vaccination Project, to ensure that we do something about this now?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a helpful question. We are making major changes to create a buffer zone, injecting, we hope, healthy badgers. We will need volunteers, and I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend might have contacts in her constituency who would like to help us in the buffer zone. Sadly, however, I have to remind her that in the core zone, where there is intensity of disease, vaccination will not work. It is in the buffer zone that we will really need help.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

What does the Secretary of State expect the policing costs of rolling out the culls to be?

[Mr Paterson]

That rather depends on what the protesters do. If the countryside were inhabited only by responsible country people, who are very concerned about TB, the policing costs would be very low. I totally respect democracy. We all have different views, and I totally respect people’s right to protest, but if we have an invasion of protesters who try to stop the democratic Government’s disease control policy by using measures that cross the border from legitimate democratic protest into active disruption, the policing costs will become significant.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

When did the Secretary of State last discuss the timetable for establishing a legal, validated cattle vaccine with the European Commission?

[Mr Paterson]

I saw the commissioner on the Monday a fortnight ago—the first day I came back.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The lesson is clear: without culling, Wales has reduced the number of bovine TB cases by 50%. It has done that not just by vaccination but by other methods. The Secretary of State’s experiment has failed in many, many respects: in its duration; in the number of animals killed; and, especially, in the suffering caused, as up to a quarter of the badgers took five minutes to die. Does he think that this example of gratuitous cruelty is likely to increase or decrease the number of protesters against this continuing tomfoolery?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he must look at the longer term in Wales. According to my sources in Wales, there was a spike because annual testing was introduced, and that accounts for the reduction. It is simply not possible to attribute this dramatic reduction, which is very welcome, to the 1.5% of Wales that has had a badger vaccination trial for two years. On humaneness, I repeat that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly. The panel report contains clear recommendations on how we can improve our techniques. Seven badgers are completely unaccounted for—they may have been missed entirely. The panel decided to put them in the category of having taken more than five minutes to die, but if they were missed entirely—they may be out there now, hale and healthy—the figure comes down dramatically, and 95% of the badgers would have died within the five-minute limit.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that vaccination is the solution in Wales, given that the reduction in TB is the same outside the vaccination area as it is inside that area? Furthermore, it is a bit rich for opponents of the cull to condemn a method of controlling badgers that they promote for the control of foxes.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes two very pertinent comments. We wish the regime in Wales well, but it simply is not credible to attribute this reduction to the brief period of vaccination in 1.5% of the land area.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

The IEP report said that the cull trial was ineffective, that it did not reach its target and that it was inhumane. What would the Secretary of State’s definition of failure be?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He rightly draws attention to foreign comparisons, and the most obvious is the Republic of Ireland. In 1999, 44,903 cattle were culled there, but by following the same techniques that we have—strict cattle movement controls, slaughter of reactors, and by removing diseased badgers—the number decreased last year to 15,612. That is a dramatic reduction of two thirds, and I am happy to report that scientists tell me that the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier than before the cull, because the badgers are healthier and they are eating better.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

As my constituency contains one of the cull pilot areas, I know how difficult this process has been. May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the thoughtful way in which he has presented his statement about the comprehensive strategy, which will be welcomed by my local farmers? May I ask him to repeat for the benefit of my constituents who are perhaps not as supportive of the cull the important comments he made about accepting the IEP’s recommendations to deal with the concerns that people might have about the humaneness of the pilot cull as it is rolled out further in Gloucestershire?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s broad support for the policy and for sticking up for his constituents. We are absolutely clear that the panel report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly, but a number did not. The report makes some clear, practical recommendations on how we can improve humaneness. We emphatically want to do that, which is why we are not rolling things out further for the moment. We are holding to the existing two pilots to see whether we can perfect the techniques to make sure that they are humane, effective and safe.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his determination to tackle bovine TB and, in particular, to stop its movement and create buffer zones. The shadow Minister spoke of inept handling, but when Labour was in power it was well known that bovine TB was moving towards Cheshire at a rate of 4 miles a year—tragically, it arrived. Does the Secretary of State agree that the inept handling of the former Labour Government in not tackling that movement put so many Cheshire farmers in the distressed position they are in today?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the 13 wasted years that let this disease rip. Her local farmers are very close to mine, and they are getting desperate, as this disease costs such a lot. It is not just about the cattle; we must consider the human cost of farmers being devastated and of lifetimes’ of work being destroyed, while they know perfectly well that in Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, where the disease is addressed in cattle and in wildlife, the disease can be got rid of.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s innovative idea of the vaccination buffer zones. How wide are they? How many cattle were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB last year? What is the total number of badgers killed in the pilot culls?

[Mr Paterson]

The idea is to establish a buffer zone on the edge, and I am delighted by the positive response from Members in the House. We will look to consult on how we bring in various groups. I am delighted that there might be volunteers, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned. The extent of this will be the number of people we can actually get involved. The number of cattle slaughtered in Britain last year was 32,620 perfectly healthy cattle, which is more than 90 a day. The numbers for badgers killed in the culls was 955 in west Somerset and 924 in Gloucestershire.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I wish to challenge my right hon. Friend’s assertion in his statement that there is no point in undertaking any vaccination in the hot-spot areas, not least because the Department’s own trial in Stroud, a hot-spot area, has demonstrated significant improvement. In addition, we have a significant programme ready to roll with the Zoological Society of London in the Penwith area of my constituency. Will he and his scientists meet me and my scientists so that we can explore this issue?

[Mr Paterson]

I am perfectly happy for my experts to meet my hon. Friend’s, but the categorical advice I am getting is that, sadly, once a badger is infected with bovine TB, the current injectable vaccination does not make them healthy. The vaccine is difficult to deliver—as I have said, a third of badgers are trap-shy. So even if we catch the remaining two thirds and inject them with a vaccine, they will not become healthy, and that is sad.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on improving the system of diagnosis for this disease, because that is how we can effectively bring together the three components—vaccination, cattle movement restriction and culling—so that they can work. Does he agree?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for sticking up for his constituents. I have been there and seen the real problems we have in Gloucestershire. He rightly identifies the fact that the strategy encompasses a range of activities—there is no one golden key to this. The lesson is that we must use all the tools. If we decide arbitrarily on misguided grounds to miss out one tool, which has been used in other countries, we will not succeed. We must use all the tools as outlined in the strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State. Welcome back.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Thank you very much for your welcome, Mr Speaker. May I quickly thank all hon. Members from across the House who have kindly sent me good wishes?

In November, I wrote to water companies stressing the tough times that households are facing and the vital role the industry can play to help reduce costs. Companies have responded positively. Most are holding bills down in 2014-15, with flat or declining bills proposed from 2015. The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers. Three companies now have them in place, with at least nine more expected by 2015.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but two weeks ago his officials told the Public Accounts Committee that his Department did not actually have a target or a measure of what “affordable” means, so when he says that water companies are acting to bring bills down, does he even know what target they are aiming for?

[Mr Paterson]

We believe this is an issue that should be decided locally by local companies consulting local consumers, and I am very pleased at the progress being made by companies in the current review.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The WaterSure scheme helps vulnerable households to pay their water bills, so will the Minister explain why he did not support Labour’s amendments to the Water Bill, which would have made information about WaterSure prominent on customers’ bills?

[Mr Paterson]

We are absolutely clear that this issue should be decided locally by local companies. There is already a huge amount of information on bills, and there is a limit to the amount that can be given on one particular document.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Of course, the cost of water is relative to that of other utilities. Unlike the energy industry, the water industry has social tariffs, and the Government have stepped in to help 70,000 households. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those schemes help people to pay something towards the cost of the water they use, which is better than defaulting?

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should be a contribution, but in some cases it should be reduced. There is no free lunch. Every time there is a reduced rate for some, it has to be covered by all other hard-working consumers paying their bills.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

In Devon and Cornwall, water bills have traditionally been high, but they have been reduced this year by 7%, thanks in no small measure to the Government’s support for hard-pressed households. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate South West Water, which has listened to local people and has just submitted a five-year plan showing that water bills may well fall by 13% in real terms over the next five years, even though it is increasing capital investment by 19%? Is that not an example of what progressive water companies can do if they listen to their local people?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating South West Water on what it has done. A reduction in bills is in marked contrast to what happened under the previous Government, when bills went up by 20%.

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

We welcome the Secretary of State back to his place after his recent appointments.

On Tuesday, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers blocked Labour’s proposals to help households that are facing growing water bills at a time when their incomes are being squeezed more and more. As we have already heard, one in 10 households are now paying more than 5% of their income to the water companies, yet as the Secretary of State has admitted, the Government are refusing to lift a finger to help them. Will he tell us the specific reasons why this Government have opposed Labour’s proposals for a national affordability scheme?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.

We are continuing the policy left by the previous Government that this should be voluntary—that is how they legislated as recently as 2010. We are clear that this is an issue that should be decided locally, because if there is a reduction for some customers, it has to be paid for by the remaining customers in that area. We are very pleased that we are seeing progress. We now have a robust Ofwat, unlike under the previous Government, and we are going to see significant changes in prices. We must also remember that we have to keep investment coming in from domestic and foreign sources, because every 1% increase in interest adds £20 to a water bill—there is a balance here.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

One of my rural constituents in Kettering has just received a £7,000 water bill, owing to Travellers and Gypsies illegally tapping into the water supply. Anglian Water says that it can do nothing; the police are um-ing and ah-ing; and there have been threats of intimidation against the constituent concerned. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister with responsibility for water kindly agree to meet me and my constituent so that we can resolve this dreadful situation?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that local issue. He should immediately get in touch with the water Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). We will take it up and see how we can help.

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

2. What changes he plans to make to policy on bovine TB; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

We published our draft strategy for achieving officially bovine tuberculosis-free status for England in July 2013 for consultation. The final version, which we will publish shortly, will outline our comprehensive plan for tackling the scourge of bovine TB in England.

[Angela Smith]

I am sure the Secretary of State agrees with me that if the report confirms that a significant number of badgers—well above the recommended 5% limit—took more than five minutes to die, that would be a very serious matter because it would prove that the cull was inhumane. In that circumstance, would he not think it vital to reconsider the policy and to abandon absolutely any plans for rolling out culling later in the year?

[Mr Paterson]

I received the panel’s report only recently. I am considering it, and I will come back to the House in due course, when it has been fully considered.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

16. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the badger cull may have played a part in tackling bovine TB in other countries, in the UK it has proved more difficult to achieve our desired result? Will he therefore agree to look at all other options, and accept that if one course of action fails, it is time to look for another?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend mentions other badger culls. The most obvious nearby country that has had one is the Republic of Ireland, where the number of cases went down from 44,903 in 1999 to only 15,612 last year. There are clear lessons to be learned from other countries—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but the circumstances here are not entirely the same. That is why our strategy encompasses a whole range of other activities involving the vaccination of badgers, the vaccination of cattle and a strict cattle movement regime, which has been a key to success in other countries.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The scourge of bovine TB, as the Secretary of State rightly calls it, is unfortunately increasing in Northern Ireland. With that in mind, and given that we have only a catch, test and release scheme and would love to have a scheme that actually dealt with the badger, will he consider calling his counterpart in Northern Ireland and setting up a national conference, which he could chair, to address the removal of this plague from our land?

[Mr Paterson]

I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman knows that I respect the protocols of devolution. We have regular discussions at ministerial and official level on matters agricultural. He is absolutely right, however, to raise the contrast between what has happened in Northern Ireland, where diseased badgers have not been removed, and the dramatic reduction in southern Ireland.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the development of vaccines for badgers and, indeed, cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

I raised the issue with Commissioner Borg on my first day back, a week last Monday. We are pressing on with the development of a cattle vaccine but, sadly, it will take some years: we have to develop a vaccine that is valid and works; we have to develop a DIVA test to differentiate between vaccinated cattle and diseased cattle; and we then have to get a legal process. I am afraid that that is going to take at least 10 years.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State back after his operation. It is good to see him back.

When the Government’s approach to TB was resoundingly rejected by Parliament two weeks ago, the Secretary of State was on a chocolate factory visit. He had previously stormed out of a debate before another Government defeat on badger culls, muttering, “I’ve had enough of this.” If he has really had enough of this, as more and more Government Members have, will he at least have the courage of his convictions and give Parliament a vote in Government time before proceeding with any more of these failed badger culls?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.

I do not recollect storming out of anywhere. We have been punctilious in keeping Parliament informed through regular statements, and the issue comes up regularly at questions. The last vote, with a majority of 61, very clearly endorsed our strategy, which is very wide and encompasses other actions. [Interruption.] The last vote on a substantive motion showed considerable support, with a majority of 61, for our strategy. The hon. Gentleman has got to get beyond the issue of culls. Our strategy encompasses vaccination of both species, significant changes to our cattle movement regime and tighter biosecurity. He should concentrate on the whole strategy, which was endorsed in Parliament by 61 votes.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s using all means at his disposal to control the disease. One of those is the polymerase chain reaction test, which will be able to identify infected live badgers and the setts in which they live. Will he ensure that all the available resources go into promoting that test, which could have a role in controlling bovine TB?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it would be a huge change if we could use PCR to analyse diseased badgers on the spot. That would change the whole debate and would be an enormous help in disease reduction. We have been working closely with the university of Warwick and are bringing in other agencies to see whether we can accelerate that work. Sadly, PCR is not yet reliable enough. If we can get a greater than 50% chance of identification, it will cause a sea change on this issue.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to prevent redundancies among staff working on flood protection at the Environment Agency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Government published social tariff guidance for water companies in June 2012, enabling the introduction of social tariffs from April 2013. Three water companies now have social tariffs in place, with a further three set to introduce them this year. Another six companies have plans to introduce social tariffs from 2015, while others are consulting with their customers.

[Nick Smith]

Ofwat says that profit margins are exceptionally high in this industry. What will the Government do to bring prices down, given the cost of living crisis in this country?

[Mr Paterson]

Unlike the last Government, we will have a robust Ofwat. Under the last Government, bills went up by 20%. We are seeing a robust Ofwat now working on the new price programme, and that will see a reduction or held prices and increased investment. A balance must be struck because we have to keep the confidence of domestic and foreign investors. A 1% increase in interest means £20 on a water bill.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Elliott review of assurance of food supply networks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Government published social tariff guidance for water companies in June 2012, enabling the introduction of social tariffs from April 2013. Three water companies now have social tariffs in place, with a further three set to introduce them this year. Another six companies have plans to introduce social tariffs from 2015, while others are consulting their customers.

[Andy McDonald]

With fewer than 25,000 people eligible for social tariffs, which are provided by just three water companies, does the Secretary of State believe that the voluntary approach is sufficient to help people who are struggling with water bills?

[Mr Paterson]

As I have said in answer to previous questions, we believe that that should be left to local companies. We are pleased that there has been progress—a number of companies have signed up—as will be clear in the next price round. As under the previous Government, who passed legislation in 2010, the regime is voluntary. We believe it is right for local companies to work with local consumers, because other consumers pay for those cheaper tariffs.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to protect bees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are growing the rural economy, improving the environment, and safeguarding animal and plant health. With flood prevention and management central to both the rural economy and the environment, last week’s Budget included a further £140 million for the repair and maintenance of flood defences, defences that in recent months protected more than 1.4 million properties and 2,500 sq km of farmland. This money is on top of the extra £130 million announced in February. Somerset was one of the areas hit hardest by the winter flooding. I spoke to the leader of Somerset council yesterday. He told me that, as part of the Somerset levels action plan, the intention is to start the initial dredge on Monday.

If I could make a brief comment on my return, Mr Speaker, I would like to send our congratulations to our colleagues in the US Congress, who on Tuesday erected a statue in the Capitol on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Norman Borlaug. His new advanced farming techniques, known as the “green revolution”, have, according to some estimates, saved 1 billion lives.

[Andrew Bridgen]

In North West Leicestershire, the new national forest continues to go from strength to strength, having a transformative effect not only on the environment but the quality of lives of local residents. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to promote tree planting across the country in the next 12 months?

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

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

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

and that it

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

T2. Partnership funding for projects such as the Pickering pilot “Slowing the flow” scheme is being attracted from public sector bodies and, to a lesser extent, internal drainage boards. Will the Minister tell us what private sector partnership funding there has been and why the major review of partnership funding, which was expected to be published in October, has been delayed?

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council will be on 24 March in Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is responsible for farming, food and marine environment, will represent the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP will also attend.

There are both fisheries and agriculture items on this month’s agenda.

On agriculture the Commission will present proposals for regulations on the provision and promotion measures for agricultural markets, which are currently under negotiation. There will possibly be a proposal regarding organic production and labelling of organic products. There will be a report from the Commission on mandatory country of origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient, which will be followed by an exchange of views. The report highlights the high costs of legislation on this issue and the European Commission has not proposed any action at this stage: the UK will resist new measures that would add to business costs. There may also be a presentation of a report from the Commission on the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector and a presidency report on the situation in the dairy sector.

On fisheries there will be an exchange of views on the recently concluded mackerel and the EU/Norway bilateral negotiations. This will highlight the agreement that has been reached between the EU, Norway and Faroe islands on the management of north-east Atlantic mackerel. The sand eel total allowable catch (TAC) for 2014 may be adopted at this Council. There is one “any other business” item that has been requested by Spain regarding illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

The presidency has also invited Ministers to a lunch to discuss international agricultural trade issues.

European Environment Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Brussels on 3 March. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, and Alun Davies, Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, also attended.

After adopting the agenda for the meeting, Environment Ministers discussed the framework for climate and energy in the period 2020 to 2030. The UK was joined by numerous member states, including Germany and France, in supporting a call for an agreement at the European Council in March. The majority of member states endorsed a greenhouse gas target of at least 40% with the UK and Sweden calling for a prospective target of 50% in the context of an ambitious agreement. The Secretary of State clarified that the UK could support a binding EU renewables target of 27% providing it could never become binding on member states nor be translated into national targets via EU-level action. Several member states welcomed the Commission’s proposal for reform of the emissions trading system, with the UK and Denmark calling for reform to be preceded by cancellation of allowances. Some Ministers called for more information and discussion on burden sharing.

Outside of Council, the Secretary of State joined the green growth group in co-signing a letter along with 12 other Ministers from the group, including those from France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The statement called for the European Council in March: to agree on the core elements of a climate and energy framework for 2030; to agree a domestic greenhouse gas target of at least 40%; an EU-level renewable energy target of at least 27% (which should not be translated into binding national targets); and asked the Council to consider the use of high-quality international carbon credits in the context of increasing climate ambition.

The Council considered a presidency compromise text on the proposal to allow member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in all or part of their territory. Most member states, including the UK, supported reopening discussions on the basis of the presidency’s compromise although several noted they would like to see further technical revisions before possible agreement. I stressed that the EU was falling behind the rest of the world in terms of utilising GMOs. I recognised the difficulty for other member states and wanted to ensure there was legally-sound flexibility for countries or regions to opt-out of cultivating GM crops if they so wished. The presidency confirmed that a technical discussion of its compromise proposal would now be taken forward.

There was an exchange of views on greening the European semester. The UK, supported by Lithuania, favoured fostering greater green jobs and resource efficiency but underlined sensitivities around discussing taxation policy in Environment Council. The UK was clear that any decisions on tax should be taken by Finance Ministers in ECOFIN. Most member states supported greening the semester including a shift to “green taxation” and strengthening the role of Environment Ministers. Some advocated greater focus on resource efficiency and the need for indicators and targets. France underlined the costs of inaction while others pointed to the lack of access to finance as a barrier to the uptake of green technology which also had a disproportionate impact on innovative SMEs.

Under other business, the Commission emphasised the urgency of agreeing the ratification of the Kyoto protocol’s second commitment period before the 2015 conference of the parties. The Secretary of State highlighted that agreeing the amendment to the monitoring mechanism regulation under the European Parliament’s mandate risked making mistakes due to the lack of consideration.

The Commission presented its air quality package and noted that poor air quality was the main cause of early mortality in Europe’s urban areas and the economic damage caused through lost workdays and healthcare costs.

The Commission also introduced a communication on tackling illegal wildlife trafficking noting that the trade was a multi-billion euro business and the EU remained a transit point for wildlife products. The UK provided an update on the recent London conference including the launch of the elephant protection initiative. On shale gas, the Commission explained their aim to ensure extraction and exploitation would command support and confidence in all stakeholders. The UK, Poland and Romania stressed the current legislative framework was adequate and questioned the implication that the Commission would bring forward legislation in 18-months’ time. The Commission said the review clause allowed the Commission to take action if member states failed to fulfil their promises. A number of member states supported the establishment of a sub-group to deal with key problems in the review of the large combustion plant best available techniques reference document.

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the soil framework directive. The UK and a majority of member states supported the withdrawal of the current text preferring non-binding measures.

Natural Capital

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Natural Capital Committee has today published its second state of natural capital report. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The committee was established in 2012 as an independent advisory body to Government. It formally reports to the Economic Affairs Committee and was one of the commitments in the Government’s 2011 natural environment White Paper (NEWP).

The role of the Natural Capital Committee is to:

provide advice on when, where and how natural assets are being used unsustainably;

advise the Government on how they should prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital, so that public and private activity is focused where it will have greatest impact on improving well-being in our society; and

advise the Government on research priorities to improve future advice and decisions on protecting and enhancing natural capital.

The three key messages made in the report are:

Some assets are currently not being used sustainably. The benefits we derive from them are at risk, which has significant economic implications;

There are substantial economic benefits to be gained from maintaining and improving natural assets. The benefits will be maximised if their full value is incorporated into decision-making; and

A long-term plan is necessary to maintain and improve natural capital, thereby delivering well being and economic growth.

The Government intend to provide a response to the committee’s report once they have considered its content fully.

National Pollinator Strategy

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Following a commitment made in June 2013, I have today launched a consultation on a proposed national pollinator strategy to safeguard the future of pollinators and pollination services. Bees and other insect pollinators play an essential role in our food production and in the diversity of our environment. They face a wide range of environmental pressures, such as habitat loss, pests and diseases, invasive species, use of pesticides and climate change. There are growing concerns that these pressures are leading to declines in the number, diversity and geographical ranges of individual insect pollinator species. We know that the public and Members of this House care deeply about this issue. However there is a great deal of uncertainty about the status of pollinators and what may be causing changes to populations. This is in part due to a patchy evidence base and insufficient monitoring data.

My priority has been to understand what the evidence is telling us and ensure that we are taking the right action. Last summer, an independent expert advisory group, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, was set up to advise on these matters. This group also provided guidance on the independent report “Status and value of pollinators and pollination services”, published today, which DEFRA commissioned in 2013 to help inform development of the strategy.

The strategy we are consulting on reflects the current evidence and also identifies where we need to know more. It sets out a collaborative plan of action for Government and external organisations to make sure pollinators thrive. This will help provide essential pollination services and benefits for crop production and the wider environment, in line with our commitments in “Biodiversity 2020”. It aims to cover all of the approximately 1,500 insect species that fulfil a pollination role in England.

As we strengthen the evidence base and our understanding of what action is needed increases, the national pollinator strategy will be flexible and adaptive. It will focus on three components:

Investment in research and monitoring to gain a firmer understanding of the nature of the problem and its drivers.

A total of 18 priority actions for Government and others to implement in the interim period, from 2014. These actions are comprehensive, covering management of farmland, towns, cities and public land. They respond to pest and disease risk. The actions also engage the public, sharing knowledge and improving our understanding of the status of pollinators and the service they provide.

A refreshment of our commitment in 2019, once new evidence is available, with a view to updating actions in line with new evidence if necessary.

Government cannot solve this problem alone. Therefore we will continue to work very closely with industry, NGOs, farmers, local government, land managers and others, including the devolved Administrations, to finalise the strategy for publication in summer 2014. Together we will produce an implementation plan, focusing on collaborative action, in the six months after the final strategy is published. I am placing a copy of the strategy and supporting documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

Winter Floods

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Since the start of December we have experienced serious flooding from the sea, rivers, and from groundwater. It has officially been the wettest winter on record.

These extreme conditions have led to the flooding of about 7,000 properties across England. I want to express my deepest sympathy for all those who have been affected and thank everyone who has worked tirelessly to deal with the aftermath; they helped protect 1.3 million properties and over 2,500 square kilometres of farmland.

In a few areas of the country, especially in southern England, some flooding is likely to continue into the coming weeks. However, other parts of the country are now making the transition to recovery. It is therefore right that I update the House on further actions being taken to support recovery and prepare for similar events in future.

Help for Somerset

Six weeks ago I visited Somerset and saw for myself the exceptional impact on the county. Local leaders called for two things: first, immediate help to manage the impact; then, rapid action to dredge the rivers.

On immediate help. Government delivered fast. We saw one of the biggest mobilisations ever to protect people, their homes and their livelihoods from encroaching floodwater.

I also asked Somerset’s councils, IDBs and local leaders, working in partnership, to produce an action plan for the long-term management of the levels and moors. I visited Somerset again yesterday, and I am pleased that they have delivered that plan on time. I am placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The plan includes some immediate actions, such as our commitment to dredge 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone. That is the key thing local people asked for. The Environment Agency will start work as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

Crucially, the plan also considers how to address flood risk over the longer term. Local partners will set up a new body to take more responsibility for water management on the levels, and will establish new ways of funding this. We will help them to do so.

Enhanced approaches to catchment sensitive farming will allow more water to be retained in the upper catchment. Ensuring new developments meet the highest standards for water and drainage will also help manage local flood risk. The plan also sets out other options for managing flood risk over the longer term, including investment in infrastructure.

DEFRA is providing an additional £10 million for Somerset for flood-related work, and I am pleased to confirm that the whole of Government will be contributing to the aims of the plan. The Department for Transport will provide a further £10 million and the Department for Communities and Local Government £0.5 million. This gives a strong base to take forward work. The challenge for the coming months will be to identify which of several longer-term priorities to take forward, and their specific funding streams. Detailed assessments and business cases will be produced for different investment choices, including how they compare to other projects across the country. The plan provides a framework to address these questions. DEFRA and its agencies will continue to support Somerset in doing so, helping secure a sustainable future for the levels and moors.

Help for fishermen

The Government have already established a range of schemes to support affected households, farmers, businesses and local communities. Today I am announcing further measures to support fishermen, who have been hit hard by recent events. I have decided that they should not bear the cost of Trinity lighthouse dues this year, a move that will benefit the industry by up to £140,000. We will also be making financial support available under the European fisheries fund to reimburse up to 60% of the cost of replacing lost or damaged gear, such as lobster and crab pots. We are working with our agencies and the Local Government Association to ensure all these schemes are easy to access, and are delivered quickly.

Electricity supplies

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, it is important that we learn the lessons from the recent flooding. That process has begun. For example, many people had their Christmas affected by the disruption we saw to electricity supplies.

The response of the network operators to that was strong, with 95.3% of disrupted customers restored within 24 hours. We are grateful to the staff of network operators who worked over the Christmas period to make that happen, often cancelling their own leave.

However, a review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, also published today, highlights areas for improvement with a clear implementation timeline to ensure that, in future, customers experience as little inconvenience as possible.

Though this review has established 23 actions for industry, and two for DECC, there are two clear priorities:

Ensure that network operators have access to better customer contact details, allowing them to contact proactively those who are disrupted to provide accurate information.

The establishment of a single national number for customers to use to contact their network operator in the event of a disruption.

I am placing a copy of this review in the Libraries of both Houses.

Transport

The severe weather disrupted rail, road, air and sea travel over the winter period. Throughout, the vast majority of transport network owners and operators have done their very best to restore services as quickly as possible and keep the country moving.

This is exemplified by the Network Rail announcement on Tuesday that they will be able to reopen the line at Dawlish two weeks earlier than initially expected. The Government recognise the impact that the weather has had on transport infrastructure. To address these issues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has also commissioned a review into the resilience of our transport networks in a future where we are likely to see more extreme weather events.

Many people were affected by the disruption to services at Gatwick on Christmas eve, when localised flooding caused a loss of power to critical systems at the airport. The subsequent review announced by Gatwick’s CEO has now reported, with 27 recommendations. We welcome this review.

It is now for Gatwick Airport to consider the recommendations and the steps necessary for increasing the resilience of the airport.

Central Government

The Government’s emergency committee COBR has taken effective action over the last three months to ensure that the risks are understood and that local responders have the resources they need. We have acted on every request for assistance received.

Over Christmas and the new year, Departments across Whitehall worked closely together to co-ordinate the Government’s response. However, it became apparent that some organisations—outside central Government—were not so actively engaged. In future, whenever there is a significant risk we will use the COBR system to ensure that all organisations, at both national and local level, are aware and fully prepared well in advance.

In order to further strengthen support and the organisation of Government recovery efforts, the Prime Minister has asked me personally to co-ordinate recovery in Somerset as part of a group of ministerial representatives for flood recovery. Those for other areas have also been confirmed today and I am placing a full list in the Libraries of both Houses.

Local government

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is also ensuring that we learn the lessons from how local authorities have responded to the recent flooding. There have been some excellent examples of local authorities who demonstrated good practice in their response. We will continue to work with local government to set out more clearly what council tax payers can reasonably expect from their councils in an emergency. For instance by providing support outside normal business hours, being a visible part of the local response and giving clear advice to residents and businesses on how to plan for emergencies.

We will continue to keep Parliament informed on the Government’s plans to learn other lessons and improve our resilience to flooding.