Dairy Industry

Simon Hart Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome the Minister to Westminster Hall for the third time in two days. He must be getting used to the warm welcome.

The debate is about one of the most important industries in the UK, the dairy industry, which affects every household in the land. Someone said to me recently, “If we’re lucky, we might need a doctor, an accountant or a lawyer once or twice a year, but we need a farmer three times a day.” That is the background to the debate. The industry has a huge impact on the local economy of constituencies around the land and the health of the industry has a far deeper effect than simply on agriculture. For example, the dairy industry has a huge knock-on effect on the tourism industry in my part of the world in west Wales. The whole UK landscape, in particular in our part of Wales, is heavily and positively influenced by the contribution of dairy farmers and other livestock farmers, often at their own expense.

Agriculture may be a devolved issue—the Minister will come to that—but world markets are not, nor is the role of the groceries code adjudicator or the dairy code of practice. The problem is a UK one, not simply a devolved matter for the Welsh Government. We bring the debate to Westminster Hall this afternoon on behalf of the dairy industry—our friends, our colleagues, our constituents who derive their living from it, our members of the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union, the CLA or Country Land and Business Association and Farmers for Action, and many others, some of whom are not members of any union.

Fluctuating prices, tensions between farmers and processors, and criticism of retailers, especially supermarkets, are nothing new in agriculture, but I do not want the debate simply to be a long list of complaints. That is not the purpose of the exercise. We need to understand what is going on in the world market and the relationship between farmers and processors, which has been raised in the House and outside Parliament on many occasions.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I am looking forward to the rest of his speech, but four pints of milk for 89p cannot be right. Something surely needs to be done.

[Simon Hart]

I will be coming to that in due course, but it is particularly galling for a producer to see that kind of offer in some retailers.

I also want to go into the role and powers of the groceries code adjudicator and the voluntary code of practice, which is subject to a review at the moment—or I think it is—and into the role of Government, if indeed they have a role at all, which I believe they do. What is completely unsustainable for the dairy industry, however, is the long-term prospect of having to sell its product for less than the cost of generating it in the first place, and the extraordinarily short notice that some producers get of significant price changes, about which they can do nothing but sit back and take the pain.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the very reason why we need the voluntary code to be strengthened—so that farmers cannot be shocked by sudden price drops by big purchasers? Will he ask the Minister to look again at the voluntary code and at making something much stronger?

[Simon Hart]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is a near neighbour. Yes, I will be making that point. The code and the adjudicator have been in place long enough now for some positive benefit to have been felt. The farming community has not yet convinced me, however, that the powers of the code and the adjudicator have been exercised as satisfactorily as they might have been.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable that producers have to give the buyers of their milk more notice about a customer change than the buyer of the milk has to give about a change in price?

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course that is right, and it is why we need to look at the relationship between producer and processor and between processor and retailer.

My third point, which I was getting to, is that added confusion is provided by the fact that there are so many different contracts for so many different things, written in so many different ways, making it difficult to find any body of farmers of any significant number who have a consistent contractual relationship.

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

It is absolutely right for my hon. Friend to be having this debate. British dairy products and milk are the best in the world, and we need to promote them more. The dairy farmers are paying some £7 million a year in levy, but the money is not getting out there to promote milk properly. Milk, cheese, yoghurt and all other dairy products need to be promoted more. We need to get the money out to the industry to get milk promoted.

[Simon Hart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I might press on now and not take quite so many interventions, because I will cover many of the points that are being made. I fully accept, however, that people will wish to write their press releases soon, so I will try to be as generous as I can.

The industry recognises that overproduction is a problem and affects price. That is a given. The industry also recognises reduced demand as a result of changing buying habits in China and of Russian sanctions. As a consequence, we are in for what one newspaper described as a long period of low prices, without any indication of what those low prices might bottom out at or of how long is “long”. Analysts are already pointing to considerable uncertainty.

There are those, although not—I am glad to say—many of them, who think that all of that can be dealt with through efficiencies in farmers’ production methods. As we have touched on, however, the short notice that people get about their milk prices cannot necessarily be offset by instant cost reduction measures or alterations to milk production methods. Some such alterations might take one, two, three or even more years to take effect, while the price reduction has an instant effect, so that is a simplistic way of addressing the problem.

An additional problem, which I suspect many Members who represent more isolated parts of the UK feel, is that there are limits to the diversification programmes that farmers can enter into. It is not always possible for people to open a suite of holiday units or a farm shop, because they might be two or three miles off the beaten track, have significant planning problems to overcome or be on a tenanted holding, the landlord of which may have a different view of the sort of developments that can be undertaken.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I represent the county with the smallest population, where the point that he is making is particularly apposite. Does he agree that it is utterly important for the Government to provide better guidance on how our co-operatives and producers can come together to get a better contractual relationship with the people who are buying their milk?

[Simon Hart]

I thank my hon. Friend for a contribution that I will add to my list of questions for the Minister. He has put his finger right on a problem that particularly affects the more isolated parts of rural Britain.

That all leads conveniently to the issue of supermarkets. The milk price public battleground always centres on the role of retailers, in particular the better known ones. Some 50% of British milk is not traded globally. We talk about global influences, but we must not forget that the other 50% of our milk is not traded globally and that its price is a straightforward consequence of the relationship between UK-based retailers and the processors. The retailers cannot escape criticism by blaming it on the Chinese or the Russians. A lot of the price is about straightforward UK contractual arrangements between two important parts of the chain.

What can the Government and the processors do? There are some long-term proposals and ideas. They are nothing new, and no one in the Chamber will be unaware of them. We must—this is an easy expression to use—continue to strive for and identify new markets. Of course—that is stating the bleeding obvious, some people might say. It cannot be done in a hurry, and it cannot necessarily be done by Government alone; it has to be done by a combination of processors and Government. Identifying and exploiting new markets is of course critical, but it will not solve the problem facing my constituents in the next few weeks.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this vital debate on dairy prices. Is he aware that the Dairy Council in Northern Ireland, which is an offshoot of the UK Dairy Council, has been awarded two EU contracts for the export of milk and cheese from Northern Ireland to third-country markets including south-east Asia? Does he agree that that will be a good stimulus to the local economy and will help with milk prices in a world in which they, like beef prices, are slightly depressed?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady’s contribution is timely. One advantage of debates such as this is that we can bring to the attention of the public and decision makers examples of where things are working and ideas for best practice. I suspect that that anecdote will resonate with the Minister, and I hope he will deal with it specifically when he sums up.

The hon. Lady might be interested in my next point, which is about accessing more EU funding to promote dairy products. Again, that is slightly simplistic and will have to be a long-term goal, but I suspect that as a nation we are not accessing those funds quite as effectively as we might be for the dairy industry.

My third point, which is another long-term project, is that there should be greater collaboration between farmers. Even in my part of west Wales I speak to numerous dairy producers, all of whom, it seems, have some slightly differing arrangement with their processors. Having quite so many variations on a theme when it comes to marketing a product does not make for a particularly cohesive industry with real marketing clout.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hart]

I am not getting on too well with not taking interventions, am I? I will give up, so I happily give way.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. When farmers are asked to open their accounts prior to the arrangement of their contracts, it is no surprise that they are laid bare to the vagaries in behaviour of the people with whom they sign contracts to sell their milk. If they have to expose every single tiny bit of profit, of course the contracts will be screwed right down to the deck.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend is referring to the cost of production and the guarantee element of contracts between certain producers and supermarkets—I am trying not to name them. That is a unique feature. I am not aware of any other industry that has to expose its accounts to quite that degree of scrutiny. That of course means that the particular customer can set a price that is so marginally advantageous to the producer as to hamper their sustainability. In reality, that arrangement is not as good as it looks or sounds. Perhaps the supermarkets in question, which champion the arrangement and use it as a public relations tool, might emerge from the shadows after the debate and tell us whether they think it is an honourable and moral way forward.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Returning to the issue of producer organisations and what we could almost call collective bargaining between producers and retailers, does my hon. Friend think there is merit in the example of the Scottish Government, who are funding an organisation called Dairy Farmers Together to develop collective agreements between the diverse types of farms that he has mentioned, so that their bargaining power is increased?

[Simon Hart]

The short answer is yes. This is a matter of the sustainability and the long-term health and vigour of the dairy industry, which at the moment is facing yet another crisis. I take on board my hon. Friend’s comments, and I will cheerfully pass the buck to the Minister so that we can hear what he has to say about that idea.

Before I sum up, I want to talk about a couple of short-term proposals that could have an instant and positive effect if the Government implemented them. The first is continued improvement of food labelling and procurement policies in the UK. Despite commitment after commitment and promise after promise over a long period, we are probably not where any of us would like to be with procurement and labelling policies. I hope the Minister will concede that we could do better. I know that is his own ambition and an ambition of the Government—I suspect it is an Opposition ambition as well—but there has never been a better time to stop talking and start delivering on procurement and labelling.

The Government should press ahead with implementing the Macdonald review and deregulation. Regulation is simply an added cost to farmers and there are not necessarily any positive benefits. There is layer upon layer of regulation, so the more we can strip away, without compromising food safety or animal welfare, the better.

The Government should continue with measures on the difficult and often controversial issue that we discussed in this Chamber only yesterday, namely wiping out bovine tuberculosis. TB still casts a huge cloud over the dairy farming industry in a few parts of the world, particularly west Wales. I do not want to make a cheap political shot, as that is something that hon. Members will know I am not prone to do, but one or two Members were in here yesterday shedding what seemed to be crocodile tears for the dairy industry over an issue that affects relatively few—albeit a significant few—dairy farmers. Where are those Members today? If they are that committed to the dairy industry, why are they not here today to talk about a subject that affects every dairy farmer and every household? I suspect I know the answer, which is that they are not the slightest bit concerned about dairy farmers; they are concerned about badgers. I do not mind that, but they should at least be honest about it.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a really important debate for our dairy industry. He is absolutely right to focus on short-term measures, which he has set out articulately. Does he agree that we also have to tackle the long-term problems? In the UK dairy industry, those problems stem from the fact that over half the milk produced goes into the fresh liquid market. The Government can help by allowing farmers to diversify into other schemes. I know that it is not always easy, and that some producers and farms do not have the capability, but we have to tackle the problem: we are over-supplying the fresh milk market.

[Simon Hart]

That point is accepted by the farming unions, but as my hon. Friend rightly points out, offsetting those difficulties through diversification schemes is often easier said than done. The uncertainty of the future of dairy farming gives rise to the issue of whether farmers can obtain the necessary funding to enter diversification schemes or more adventurous marketing schemes on the back of a dangerously fluctuating short-term horizon. However, I take on board his well made point.

Some solutions have been put forward by the retailers themselves, so there are silver linings to one or two clouds that we have referred to. To cite ideas from one particular retailer—I am trying to avoid naming individual companies, so that I am not bombarded with rebuttals and the like when I leave the Chamber—those solutions include working with processors to create greater transparency in the supply chain, and enabling farmers to see how prices are set in order to create better trust within the supply chain. That is a new way of working that has not been seen before in the industry, and it will create benefits for farmers, consumers and the industry. For example, the price paid to farmers will be worked out every three months, based on a rolling average of indexed butter and milk powder prices. Those commodity prices are publicly quoted, and in each case there is a futures market, allowing farmers to look ahead and hedge or protect themselves against price movements. That will allow dairy farmers better to predict milk prices and plan accordingly.

That idea comes from an e-mail from somebody who took the trouble to contact me recently. However, if I may use a rather clumsy analogy, it aligns what we are discussing with the principle of a fixed-term mortgage. If the industry is prepared to enter into an arrangement in which it can play the futures market, we can have contracts that are perhaps fixed for a longer period. If contracts can be fixed both between retailer and processor and between processor and farmer, we will be able to look at one-year or two-year contracts, or perhaps—maybe I am being over-optimistic—even further ahead than that.

Yes, of course, there are risks. There are risks to each person in the chain, but surely we can inject a degree of certainly into the industry to eliminate the risks and the downside from which people are suffering, which affects not just farmers, but everyone who relies on farmers in some shape or form.

It is a promising way forward if the retailers are beginning to recognise that there is a need for a transparent contract system based on being able to look ahead and take an average price over a future period. There would then at least be recognition that we are looking at the end of the unacceptable practice of simply sending a text message to a producer to downscale their milk price in two or three weeks.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no press release attached to my intervention. He has got to the nub of a constructive proposal, but at present the groceries code adjudicator is limited in what she can do. Improving the adjudicator’s powers and the code would enhance the solution that the hon. Gentleman is constructively proposing: a direct relationship between the retailer and the producer of the goods coming into the supermarkets.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman plays nicely into the completion of my contribution. I want to quote from a farmer in my constituency, not a particularly large farmer and certainly not a militant one, but someone who has worked hard on his holding for a long time and reinvested every penny in his business:

“The important bit, and the message which we are struggling to get across, is the”

groceries code adjudicator

“needs to use her powers to investigate the relationship between the Retailers & the Processors. If the Adjudicator would look at the paper trail between the likes of”

x and y,

“she would find millions of pounds, which could result in a minimum of 3p per litre back to the producer. This would turn the job round immediately as it would go to the nonaligned producers. If this was followed up & she had the guts, it would open up the biggest can of worms ever in the dairy industry. The problem is the Retailers & Processors will fight this all the way because it's their extra profit that is cleverly hidden.”

That sounds provocative and it was written with passion, but it highlights a belief and a feeling that is probably replicated throughout the UK dairy industry. We now have an opportunity to correct that, thanks, dare I say it, to the price crisis that most farmers are experiencing. We have a chance to correct it with Government, retailer and processor action, and through greater awareness and willingness to accommodate changes from the producers.

I hope that other hon. Members will produce their own anecdotes and views, so that the Minister can form a view that he can put to us at the end of the debate and that will, above all, encourage all those who are struggling, but on whom we rely to secure a longer-term sustainable business for the benefit of UK agriculture.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Badger Culls (Assessment)

Simon Hart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes, because I make that point very well. As he said, these two trials are entirely at the farmers’ expense, and there would be very little cost in policing them were it not for the activity of the protesters. If we set the cost of culling against the cost of what the farmers are providing, there is no doubt about it: this cull is very considerably cheaper than the cost of vaccination, which is not yet proved to be working either. I would be interested to know, when the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) speaks, whether she thinks vaccination is working in Wales.

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

The reality is that the Labour Government in Wales fully recognise that they cannot measure the impact of vaccination yet, and what reduction there is of bovine TB in Wales is just the same outside the vaccination area as it is inside, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) can point to no evidence that the alternative Labour method is working in Wales.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I had better make some rapid progress, Mr Caton, or else you will call me to order for not making my six-minute deadline. Let me make one or two brief points.

As I said, it is welcome that vaccination is taking place in certain parts of the country to try to prevent the further spread of this awful disease, but the simple fact is that vaccination does not work for an already infected badger. If it does not work, that infected badger, by going to the bottom of its sett, continues to infect the whole of that sett. It also must be remembered that vaccination generally works better on young badgers. Young badgers do not emerge from their sett for six months or so, and therefore do not get vaccinated for that first vital six-month period of their life when they are likely to be infected by the infected badgers. The other point to remember about vaccination is that badgers have to be vaccinated every year for five years before it is effective.

I have referred to some anecdotal evidence about how the trials have worked, but I can also give the House some actual evidence of where vaccinating is not working. On the Killerton estate in North Devon, where TB is a huge problem, the National Trust has been vaccinating badgers at an annual cost of £45,000 for the past four years, and there have recently been as many as six additional herd breakdowns due to TB, which seems to show that vaccinating alone is not the solution.

Many people cite vaccination in Wales as an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned, but that is not the whole story. Although TB has been reduced in Wales, the current vaccination programme is only being conducted in 1% of the country and it is only in its second year. It is therefore difficult to see how the Welsh experiment—as he said, the Labour party in Wales does not think it is working—has led to a 25% reduction across the whole of Wales, where other factors must be at play.

Therefore, culling must be part of the solution. No less than the president of the British Veterinary Association has said:

“Badger culling is a necessary part of a comprehensive bovine TB eradication strategy”.

I really hope that the Labour party will think carefully about what one of our foremost experts in the country said about that. Vets are the very people who want to see a humane strategy for tackling this disease, because they of all people know what suffering the disease causes to badgers.

Nobody wants to see animals culled. I am an animal lover. Farmers are animal lovers. This is not an enjoyable solution, but it is a necessary one. Clear evidence tells us that no country in the world has got its TB problem under control without removing it in the reservoir of the wildlife. We have seen that in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, all of which are now virtually BTB-free.

On top of that, evidence also tells us that every time there has been a culling programme in this country—any of the six previous trials, including the Krebs trials— there has been a reduction in bovine TB. I accept that in some of the Krebs trials the reduction was relatively small, but that was related to the number of badgers that were taken out. The higher the number of badgers in an area that are taken out, the higher the reduction in BTB, and that, I think, has been fairly well scientifically proven.

In conclusion—because I think I have exceeded your patience and my allotted time, Mr Caton—it is too early to tell whether the culls have been successful. Anecdotal evidence tells us that they are beginning to have some success. Let us hope, for the sake of the farmers who are affected by this dreadful disease and the cattle that will have to be culled, that they are having some effect. The culls will be rolled out only in the very worst areas of BTB. I am all in favour of ring vaccination around those really bad areas, but let us see it as part of a comprehensive strategy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for being steadfast in their desire to eliminate this dreadful disease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

We keep on hearing about the New Zealand experiment, but it had other aspects, such as improved movement and better biosecurity measures. We need to ensure that we have such things as part of a whole package.

I am personally opposed to the badger cull, and I think we should look at other ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, of dealing with the issue, such as vaccination, which is what is happening in Wales. We are seeing a reduction in bovine TB; indeed, I read somewhere, although I cannot find the precise source, that there has been a reduction of 48%. We have to look at these issues. However, the cull was not the right way forward, and it is not the right method now.

[Simon Hart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tracey Crouch]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because other people want to speak.

One concern I have with assessing the effectiveness of the culls is that we keep changing the methodology. For example, we had one estimate of the badger population in the first year; now we have another estimate of its size, and that will interfere with a proper independent audit. The large downgrade in the population estimates for last year’s cull has been followed by estimates suggesting that this year’s cull numbers are set to be met in Somerset, but not in Gloucestershire, due to the different methodologies used to estimate badger numbers in the two areas. In Somerset the method involved multiplying the number of setts by a fixed number and taking the lowest figure from the estimated range, a method described by the ecologist Professor Rosie Woodroffe as “very crude”. She said that

“the targets are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data...with the data that is being collected, it will be impossible to know how effective this year’s culls have been”.

I would argue strongly that that is making it nearly impossible to compare or measure success. How, then, can we measure the key levels of success by the Government’s own indicator, if we cannot agree on the population size in the first place?

Others have mentioned the independent expert panel. I was going to say that it is disappointing that it has been disbanded, but I do not think that it has been disbanded, technically; it has just not been reinstated, so it will not meet again. It is incredibly disappointing; the panel was important for close monitoring of the culls. It is also disappointing that not all the data have been published, and an independent audit is now taking place. I would like the Minister to outline who is undertaking that audit. I do not think that any of us fully understands precisely what is being done. Will the audit involve monitoring of the culls? I understand that the British Ecological Society has offered to take on the role but has not been taken up on that. We need another, proper, debate in the House of Commons. If there is to be widespread culling a full-scale discussion in the Chamber is needed, and the Minister needs the political will of the House to go forward. I do not think that he has that. A number of my hon. Friends who originally voted for the culls are now sceptical, following the pilot culls. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that if the policy is not working we must address the issue again, and not continue absent-mindedly through fear of looking weak.

I am a strong supporter of the Government, but we have not seen the results from the culls that the Minister may have wanted, in the initial tests. We need to consider what happens in Wales and not to be so sceptical about the different approach being taken there. We also need to re-examine the issues of cattle movement and rigorous biosecurity on farms. Farmers from high-incidence areas have contacted my office—so I assume they have contacted the Department—to say that they are willing to be trial farms and be involved in vaccination tests as opposed to pilot culls; so I think there are farmers out there who want to consider other methods of tackling bovine TB. I remain absolutely opposed to the badger cull and I hope that the Minister will explain how he will properly assess the results of the second year of badger culls and publish that assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

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

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

[Simon Hart]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to provide

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

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

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

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

DEFRA Communications: Hill Farmers

Simon Hart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak. It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon.

I am raising the issue of the communications by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with hill farmers. I requested this debate following a meeting I had with Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services—UTASS—a charity that works with hill farmers in my constituency, and I have also had discussions with some of the farmers themselves. I should just say that the hill farming in my constituency is very long-standing and it is rather unusual in that most of the farmers involved are tenant farmers farming on common land. There has been hill farming in this way for about 500 years in my area.

The problem is that DEFRA requires farmers to communicate online, and the Government have failed in their project to roll out broadband across the country. Across the entire country, 5 million people do not have access to broadband and the problem is particularly severe in the rural areas. The counties with the biggest problem are Cumbria, Devon, Dorset, the East Riding, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northumberland, Rutland, Shropshire and Somerset. I think that we can all agree that there are large farming communities in all those counties.

In my constituency, only 46% of the farmers who go to UTASS have broadband. Obviously, therefore, a Government policy of delivering public services that is digital by default is doomed to fail, and DEFRA should be the Department that is the very last to introduce digital by default in its communication system and not the first, which it seems to be at the moment.

On 6 May, UTASS found that 19 farmers were booked in to the charity to complete their application forms for the online single payment scheme, but the system was down, just as it had been on the previous Friday and on several days in the previous weeks. This meant that farmers were driving several miles to access the IT point, but then the Government’s IT system was down and they were unable to transact the business. This process is time-consuming and stressful; it is the very opposite of what we expect from DEFRA.

I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), here in Westminster Hall today, but I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is not present, because he replied on 3 June to my initial letter about this issue. His response to me was wholly inadequate. He wrote:

“Although I accept that these intermittent problems will have been frustrating for RPA customers”—

customers of the Rural Payments Agency—

“the system has been performing well for the majority of the application period.”

What level of failure does DEFRA believe is acceptable or unacceptable? The problem is that if the farmers’ applications were not in on time, they could lose money, but it was difficult—indeed, for some farmers it was impossible—to get their applications in on time due to the failures in DEFRA’s own system.

In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State continued:

“The Agency has had record numbers of on-line submissions with almost 70 per cent of the nearly 102,000 submissions received to date (16 May) being made online.”

However, he does not know or does not take into account in that statement how much time, energy and work was involved in submitting them on time; nor does he seem concerned about the 30% of farmers who, by 16 May, had not completed their submissions. So he says:

“Given that overall picture, I cannot give a blanket assurance that penalties will not be applied.”

That seems to be wholly unreasonable.

The animal reporting and movement service also has a history of crashing online, and it is simply not practical for farmers to take several hours out of their day to travel to ICT facilities.

The next problem is the number of personal identification numbers that farmers are required to have in order to interface with DEFRA, which is a staggering 27. There are so many different systems run by DEFRA and on each one farmers are required to have a different PIN. I do not know about you, Ms Dorries, but I find it difficult to remember my code to enter the House of Commons and my bank number. The thought of having to have 27 different identifiers, or maybe even 28 for some farmers, is absurd.

Let me inform the House what those numbers are for. For the RPA, there is a single business identifier; a personal identifier for each partner in the business, because obviously many farms are family-run; a vendor number; an integrated administration and control scheme number; a PIN to access the single payment scheme online; a holding number, which is called a county parish holding number, with an additional one required for each block of land that is more than five miles from the boundary of the main holding; a herd number; and a flock number. For Natural England, an “AG number” is required for “ELS/UELS/HLS agreements”, which relate to the high-level scheme and the systems of support for the rolling out of the common agricultural policy in this country; and a Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 access number is also needed. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has its own system of identifying numbers; for the Environment Agency, a groundwater authorisation number, a waste carrier number and a waste exemption registration are required; and for DEFRA itself, a holding transport registration number and a City and Guilds number for the transport of animals and PAl to PA6 and so on are needed.

Of course, farmers are running businesses, so they need to interface with other parts of the Government, which involves a national insurance number, a health service number and a passport number. In addition, of course, many farmers have shotgun and firearm licence numbers; they have VAT numbers; they have Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs numbers, both individual numbers and business numbers; the Government Gateway has a number and password; the British Wool Marketing Board number is obviously important for sheep farmers; and the breed societies have numbers. Also, there are separate numbers for every bovine animal and sheep over the age of 12 months on the premises, and separate transaction numbers for every movement or passport issue. That is a proliferation of numbers that we would think incredible if we read it in a novel by Kafka. However, it is not incredible in modern DEFRA.

There is also an extremely important set of further numbers, which are individual field numbers. These feature highly in the operation of the SPS applications. Most of the SPS forms are now pre-populated by the RPA, but all information needs to be cross-checked by the farmer, as the onus is placed on the farmer to correct errors made by the RPA. Each field number needs to be checked by the farmer against four further items: the correct size is stated for that particular field; the net land area is eligible, as detailed on the rural land register for that particular field; the claimed area details are correctly detailed for that particular field; and the land use code is correct for that particular field. If the farmer does not spot an error made by the RPA, the farmer is liable and financially penalised.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Goodman]

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will just point out that in my constituency the farmers have 20 fields, so 80 administrative cross-checks are required in this process.

[Simon Hart]

I had not come to Westminster Hall with the intention of making a political point, because I sympathise hugely with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said. Therefore I hesitate to say this, but almost every one of the regulations that she has mentioned were introduced under the Government of her own party. Therefore, is she here today to support the coalition’s efforts to reduce red tape in farming?

[Helen Goodman]

I will come on to this Government’s attempts to cut red tape in the red tape initiative, which—as I have read out the 27 numbers, plus the field numbers and I have not finished yet—has been a miserable failure, frankly. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in this House in the last Parliament, but I was and I criticised the system under the previous Government, because I am very concerned at the way the hill farmers are treated by DEFRA, the RPA and Natural England. And if I might say so, I thought that a coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats with more rural seats than the previous Labour Government would do better, but that is not the case. It has not done better. If anything, the situation is getting worse and this causes a huge number of problems.

Let me move on to the costs to farmers of running the various schemes. Every sheep needs an electronic identification tag. These used to cost 10p each, but now they cost 85p each and each sheep needs two. There are 100,000 sheep in Teesdale, so immediately we see that Teesdale farmers are landed with a bill for £170,000. Every farmer needs a tag reader, and those cost £700 each. DEFRA is putting massive costs on to farmers.

The cattle need passports: their movements have to be recorded, as do their births and deaths and medicines they have been given. The system for medicines must be even tighter than that required for humans in the NHS. One farmer told me that he has to

“report movements, births, deaths—

but, fortunately—

“not marriages in our Holding Register for sheep and Herd Register for cattle. All veterinary medicine treatments have to be recorded with the identity number of the animal, batch number of the medicine, dosage and expiry date”.

He said that the impact of the red tape initiative has been

“so small as to be imperceptible.”

As well as changing the rules of the CAP, DEFRA is trying at the same time to move the system online, and that is getting worse at the moment. That is being done by this Government and their failure in that regard is totally their responsibility.

There are also changes to the timing of higher level stewardship payments. One big problem is that, whereas farmers received regular in-year payments, now, because of the changeover, most will have to wait for 18 months for a payment, rather than six months. However, some farmers will have to wait as long as nine years for payments. Therefore their incomes are severely pushed down and they are not paid any interest while they wait for money for long periods.

In case Government Members are under any illusion about the farmers in my constituency—I have already mentioned that they are tenant farmers—Newcastle university estimates that the average income of a hill farmer in my area is £11,000 a year. These are not people who can cope with severe fluctuations up and down in their cash flow or cuts to their income.

The RPA online system is, as I have said, deeply problematic. The farmers feel that DEFRA has not done an adequate job in negotiating with Europe.

Bovine TB

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Things have not always been done as we should have liked in the past, and we are therefore investing an extra £5 million in tackling waste crime. I have asked the chief executive of the Environment Agency and Lord Smith to come back to me—as they are doing—with proposals for improving the position by toughening up regulation. The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to me about specific issues relating to the case that he has raised.

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

T5. The Minister will be aware of the importance of recreational sea angling around the coast of west Wales. Have the Government conducted any economic study of its importance to jobs, and what they can do to protect them?

[George Eustice]

Last November I attended the launch of Sea Angling 2012, which did just that. It found that, in 2012, English anglers had spent £831 million on the sport. When indirect and induced effects are accounted for, that could support a total of more than £2 billion of spending. The report is available on the Marine Management Organisation’s website.

Badger Cull

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It will be with a heavy heart that I will not vote on this motion, if there is a Division. I really want to support the livestock industry and to demonstrate my commitment to eradicating this disease, but I am not prepared to vote on the basis of a partially leaked document—it was not even fully leaked—reported on the BBC news a couple of weeks ago.

I agree with and share the view of the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) that we should not seek to highlight an urban-rural divide, but it is disappointing that he referred to a number of alleged statistics from a report that none of us has had the benefit of seeing. How we can make a reasoned judgement on that, I do not know.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister has it.

[Simon Hart]

I have a huge amount of respect for the shadow Minister, as he knows. It is all very well for him to point at the Minister and say that he has it, but we cannot just look through a lengthy report in one morning or during a debate and reach a solid conclusion.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

Not at the moment, but I will in a short while.

This is a matter of great sensitivity. Although I have a long and well-known track record on this particular issue, I fully accept that not everybody shares my view and that there are some passionate contrary views. I respect them as much as I possibly can and I will—as I always have—study the alternative view.

We are talking not about a percentage reduction in bovine TB, but about how we best deal with eradication. I want to touch on two subjects: humaneness and the comparisons with the policy in Wales, which is being used as a nice, easy solution whereby people say, “Why don’t we just do what the Welsh are doing, because it seems to be working there?”

On humaneness, we have to take a view on whether culling is necessary. I accept entirely that not everybody takes that view, but if we accept that culling will play not the sole part, but a part in eradicating bovine TB, we have to look at the comparative measures available and the comparative suffering associated with each of them. There is no method of control or culling—none—that is without its welfare consequences. If anybody can highlight one, I will take an intervention. Even cage trapping comes with a welfare consequence—about which there is very little research—because animals may be trapped in those devices for a significant time before anybody deals with them. We have to make comparisons and reach a view. We have not done so and we are avoiding that particular aspect of the argument.

Only when we have looked at the comparative measures will we be able to address the whole subject in context. It is important to consider the suffering of cattle and badgers with TB, bearing in mind that a lot of cubs get infected while in the sett and are already carrying the disease by the time they emerge from it. Any vaccination after that is pointless, because they have already contracted the disease. We have to look at this practically. We also need to consider the suffering of farmers and the impact on their livelihood, which has been mentioned by pretty much every speaker. We also need to consider the suffering—I use that word carefully—of taxpayers who are, year in, year out, forking out substantial sums of money while we continue to dither over this subject.

On the comparison with Wales, I want to read out two quotes. The first is from the veterinary advice to the Welsh Government in 2011:

“A proactive, non-selective badger cull is expected to reduce the level of confirmed herd breakdowns within the culling area for year 1.”

The second is from the veterinary advice to the Welsh Government in 2012:

“In so far as the results of RBCT can be extrapolated to the IAA”—

the intensive action area—

“it is possible to conclude that the outcome of an effectively managed cull of badgers (in the IAA) should be an overall reduction in the number of breakdowns.”

It is important to bear in mind that the only thing that has changed in Wales is the colour of the Government—the veterinary advice has not changed. It is essential that the House and others realise that the idea that some magic cure is being applied to the badger population in Wales is a myth. Anybody who suggests—as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is not in his place, did—that there is a substantial decline in the number of herd breakdowns in Wales as a result of vaccination needs to take a wee bit of care, because in fact the statistics demonstrate that the reduction is exactly the same across the whole of Wales: there is no material difference between the reduction outside the vaccination area and that inside the vaccination area. The advice from the Welsh Government Minister, whom I spoke to personally, is that it would be dangerous to reach conclusions about the impact of vaccination based on the results so far. I just want to put that on the record.

As the Minister himself said:

“I am delighted that overall the figures have come down, however we cannot be certain that this is a long term trend and there may still be more fluctuation in the figures.”

Those who think that the answer lies in Wales should look again. We are a long way off being able to bring to the House news of a silver bullet having been invented and deployed in our part of the country.

It is important to allow other speakers to have their say. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the objective is eradication, not reduction. All the experts to whom I have spoken, including those in Cardiff representing Government and agricultural interests, recognise that a floor will be reached as a result of all the other measures that will be put in place, such as the measures on cattle movements and more rigorous annual testing. If we are to break through that floor and reach eradication rather than reduction, culling will be back on the agenda. Nobody of any political colour or persuasion when it comes to culling has not confirmed the fact that, if we are going to deal with the matter once and for all, we are going to have to address the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.

If one encouraging thing has come from today’s debate—I share the view of those Members who say that it is somewhat premature—it is the fact that at last one or two people are talking about a collaborative approach between parties, rather than simply using the issue as a means of political point scoring. If we can take an intelligent view and look at the best practice of the policy in Cardiff as well as some of the measures in England, I think we will make some progress. However, the idea that we can simply dismiss one important part of the strategy of reducing TB simply because we find it distasteful does not do badgers, cattle, farmers or taxpayers any favours.

Rural Communities

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

May I add my congratulations to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its work on this report and the issues it raises? I cannot deny that I am slightly underwhelmed by the turnout in the Chamber this afternoon. The manifestos of all the political parties have always over the past few years stressed the importance we attach to rural communities and rural voters. When we have an opportunity to express that support, albeit on a one-line Whip Thursday, I think we should all reflect on the fact that we mustered a maximum of 15 Members—I could probably have fitted them into my office—and at our worst, at the moment, about 11, and at least 50% of the representation has come from Wales, as has been said. It is important to have debates such as this, however, because minorities are important and the fact that the rural community represents a small voice at times—and a numerically small one when it comes to elections—is all the more reason we should treat it with the greatest respect, and with enhanced respect in our political deliberations in this Chamber.

I want to touch on a few matters that I have extracted from the report and which to some extent are treated differently in Wales thanks to the devolution settlement, but first I want to comment briefly on the definitions that are tucked away in an appendix towards the back of the report. The definition of “rural areas” we would have come up with 20 years ago would have been very different from the current definition. That is in part down to the fact that there is no longer an area we can describe as exclusively or truly rural, any more than we can describe an area of London as exclusively urban. The fact is that we have a much more dynamic population that spends a lot of its time, if it possibly can, in other areas. The—almost geographical—line that used to exist separating city centre from suburb and suburb from countryside does not really exist any longer and we need to be very careful not to isolate elements of the community and describe them as being different from other parts. That contributes to what can be an unhelpful element of this debate, when people say, for instance, “Townspeople do not understand us” and some sort of cultural distinction is drawn between those who live in the countryside and derive their living from it and those who love and respect the countryside and wish to visit it from time to time. If through our loose use of words in this Chamber we create a distinction between those two valuable contributors to the rural economy, we will do ourselves harm rather than good.

The first subject I want to discuss is broadband, which all contributors have mentioned. It is seen as almost essential when people are buying or renting their house that it has a decent electricity or gas supply, and estate and letting agents say that one of the first things a client will now do when walking into a house is look at their mobile phone and see what the reception is like and ask what the broadband provision is like, and if it is not up to the standard they expect or require there is a pretty good chance they will look at other properties instead.

The role of BT and the broadband roll-out has been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is not in his place, rightly pointed out that the situation is slightly different in Wales. We need from BT, through the relevant Minister, a little clarity about exactly what criteria BT is applying to its roll-out because that is not immediately obvious to the average customer and voter. This is not a selfish request, and there is also the encouraging news that in Wales the 100,000th household has been connected to superfast broadband this week, so thumbs-up to the Government for having achieved that milestone. The clarity we require from BT is not a selfish request because we want to enable those people who may be further down the priority list and who may not be due superfast roll-out for a number of years to make sensible decisions in investing in alternative providers, whether wireless or satellite. At present they feel restricted in doing that because they do not know where they sit in the list of BT priorities. A perfectly straightforward and justified commercial interest is being expressed by businesses across the UK and, I suspect, especially in Wales: that they should be able to make some sensible decisions based on BT being a little more open about its criteria. For BT to cite commercial sensitivities as a reason not to do that—as I believe it has done—is not a satisfactory answer because it creates a two-tier society, particularly in Wales, with those who know they are going to get it and know when they are going to get it and those who have absolutely no idea and have no idea how much they can spend on alternative provisions.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and I have previously exchanged comments in the Chamber and Westminster Hall about mobile phones because it does seem ludicrous that in parts of our two constituencies we seem to be somewhat behind the Alps, Norway, parts of Africa and, indeed, Kazakhstan in people being able to communicate with one another via mobiles. Again, this is not about kids being able to have a laugh by texting each other; it is about sensible, commercial, contemporary requirements. Indeed, the emergency services are a whole lot more dependent on decent mobile coverage for providing the protection we expect from them than they were five or 10 years ago. Mobile fingerprinting machines will not even work in certain parts of rural Wales because there is not a mobile signal to support them. This is not about luxuries, therefore; it is about an everyday essential commercial requirement for people going about the sorts of businesses we want and need and providing the services that keep us safe. There are economic consequences of our lacking the mobile coverage that in other countries is seen to be absolutely standard.

I have been raising for some time the topic of planning and affordable housing, particularly in the context of the national parks. In a Westminster Hall debate just before Christmas I raised the problem of affordable housing provision in my own national park on the basis that the affordable housing subsidy—a policy that is not universal across all national parks in the UK, but is certainly adopted by some—was acting as a deterrent to people developing affordable housing, rather than encouraging it. I am pleased to say that that has resulted in an internal review of this policy by Pembrokeshire coast national park. It accepts that the policy has not worked as well as it would like and that there was a distinction between rural and urban, and, most encouragingly, this month it is engaging with all rural stakeholders and interested stakeholders in my area to see if the policy can be improved so that the landscape can be enhanced and protected at the same time as kick-starting the currently flagging affordable housing building and provision in the county. The message, therefore, is a thumbs-up and full marks to Pembrokeshire coast national park for recognising in the first instance that there was a problem and, secondly, for doing something about it, not through its own auspices but by inviting all those in the area with an interest in this topic to engage in a process. I hope other Members will take some encouragement from that and perhaps try to persuade their own national parks to undertake a similar exercise if there is a similar problem, because that returns influence and power to the communities where it should be held and where these decisions can have a huge benefit if decided correctly—or a huge negative impact if not.

My penultimate subject is fuel and fuel costs. Other Members have made quite a lot of this, but one point has not yet, I think, been mentioned: the steady decline in the number of filling stations in rural areas over several years. Slowly but surely where there was once one five miles away there is now one 10 miles away or even 15 miles away, and each and every closure not only imposes greater expense and inconvenience on rural communities, but some other services often go, too—a shop, or an outlet where people can buy their gas canisters or whatever. This has been another little difficulty layered on top of all the other difficulties of living in rural areas.

When we talk about rural-proofing, we sometimes overlook the fact that Treasury decisions on fuel duty for independent fuel retailers can have a disproportionately hard-hitting effect on rural areas. I believe that, at present, the duty is payable within 28 days of the moment the fuel leaves the refinery. A small independent fuel retailer in a rural area will therefore have to fork out a significant amount—80% of the value of the load—before they have a chance to sell any of it on to the customer. Consequently, they are uncompetitive. They place small orders, and their supplies often run out when the weather is bad. This can contribute to a delicate and fragile situation with regard to fuel resilience.

That problem could easily be rectified by altering the date by which the fuel duty became payable. The Treasury would be no worse off, and the independent fuel retailers in rural areas would be much more competitive. They could buy more, and they could compete better against the bigger suppliers. To coin a phrase, everyone would be a winner. I wonder whether the Minister or anyone else here today could persuade the Treasury to do that in a way that came as close as possible to being cost neutral. I suspect that that is a matter for the Department rather than for those on the Back Benches. Such a change would make a significant difference to the ability of those independent retailers to run sustainable businesses and support rural communities.

Almost no legislation is passed here or in the House of Lords that does not have a significant consequence for rural dwellers. We might not think that that is the case, but it almost invariably is. As I said earlier, there is no longer a big black line between rural and urban communities; we are not as diverse a society as we once were in that respect. I urge the Government to pay as much attention as they can—perhaps even more than they already do—to the unintended consequences of their legislation on rural communities. Fuel duty is but one example; there are countless others.

The latest statistic I have seen suggests that rural Members of Parliament represent only 2% of the electorate, but we represent a great deal more than 2% of the national value of the UK, and of Wales in particular. We rightly champion rural communities and rural landscapes, but when it comes to double-checking and rural-proofing the legislation that affects them, we sometimes fall short of the standards that we should attain. I hope that the Government will refocus their attention on the unintended consequences of their legislation.

The Government’s commitment to doing things for rural Britain, rather than to rural Britain, is largely welcome. I was pleased to hear the examples from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) just now; he illustrated how things can go well. We are all accused of moaning like mad and complaining about everything, but there are lots of success stories in rural Britain at the moment, even if some of them are happening despite the Government rather than because of them. By and large, we can commend the EFRA Select Committee for the balanced way in which it has addressed these issues, and commend the Government for the progress they have made so far.

Badger Cull

Simon Hart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

The culls are making matters worse, and yet Members are straining at the leash to intervene to support the badger cull. I will give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), whom I know is an inveterate supporter of killing badgers.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the evidence is completely one-sided. Does he accept to some extent the evidence of the British Veterinary Association? We have accepted its evidence in other debates, such as on circus animals. It is concise and focused on this. Does he accept that there are at least some scientists out there who take a contrary view and that the matter is not as one-sided as he maintains?

[Chris Williamson]

I of course concede that some small percentage of individuals—pseudo-scientists, some might call them—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

I shall be brief, and stick to practical concerns including one or two claims that have been made about practical matters, rather than talking about the science, which I shall leave to the Minister.

There are four myths that I want to discuss. The first is the ineffectiveness or otherwise of shooting. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said, we need to be careful about leaping to conclusions before the independent expert panel reports, but it is worth factoring into the investigations how much of a bearing the quite high level of animal rights activity had on the effectiveness of the shooting exercise. If it emerges that protest activity—whether those involved were innocently exercising their right to protest, which is fine, or were more strident, active and militant—had a negative impact on the exercise, that should be reported in full. The report should cover the question of what the result would have been without that activity.

As I mentioned in the debate that we had in the main Chamber, I detect a little hypocrisy in arguments about the effectiveness of shooting. The same organisations that now claim that shooting is an ineffective method of controlling or destroying a mammal of the size in question said something else on the subject of foxes, in a different debate only a few years ago. The RSPCA said:

“Shooting is widely held to be a humane method of control in skilled hands”.

The League Against Cruel Sports, the organisation that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) is associated with, said:

“Culling should be carried out by the most efficient and humane methods available. In practice we believe this means the use of high velocity rifles by users who have passed a competency test or by humane trapping”.

It seems odd to me that the method that was deemed to be the answer to all the queries a few years ago is now deemed inappropriate.

[Caroline Lucas]

I know that the hon. Gentleman said he would leave the science to the Minister, but it would be good if he knew a little of it. There is a vast difference between culling badgers and culling foxes, and if he had availed himself of yesterday’s briefing by a scientist who works in this field, he would have seen that those animals act differently, so such a correlation cannot be made.

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful for the lesson on countryside management. Actually the method of control is similar and the activity of the animals is very similar. If the hon. Lady had, as I have, spent many hours studying how they behave at night, in the lights of a vehicle or the lights used by an expert, she might reach another conclusion. Perhaps that is a debate for another day.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Surely it would have been most sensible to mark the ammunition used in the pilot, so that the public could be assured about whether the bullets that were fired reached their target. There has been no such marking of ammunition, so it is not possible to be certain that it did not damage and wound badgers. I have mentioned the issue time and again, and I do not understand why the Department is so loth to do it, so that we know exactly what happens.

[Simon Hart]

The Natural England licensing conditions are clear about the sort of ammunition and weaponry that should be used, and the degree of expertise to be deployed. We all need to wait to see if there was any wounding—let alone what the rate of that was—so I shall not answer the question and I do not suppose the Minister can either.

Opponents of the cull have quite reasonably pointed out that cage trapping can be more effective; but they have also said that it is ineffective, or less effective than it could be. I find that odd. If it is ineffective for the purpose of removal, why should it be effective for the purpose of vaccination? If we can learn anything from what has been said, it is that it is very difficult to trap wild animals, whether to dispose of them with a weapon or to inject them with a vaccine. I do not say that it is not possible. I live almost next door to the vaccination operation that is going on in Wales, and am well aware of the practical difficulties that are being encountered; but we cannot say that trapping badgers to shoot them is ineffective, but trapping them to vaccinate them is effective. That does not wash.

The third myth is that public safety has been compromised. There does not seem to be any evidence. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby North can come up with hard and fast evidence. Before we bandy scare stories around we need examples. I mentioned the endorsement given by animal welfare organisations in the past few years to the use of high-velocity weapons for the control of other mammals in Britain. It is odd: if it does not pose a public safety issue to put fox control into the hands of someone with a high-powered weapon who knows what they are doing, why should it pose a safety issue when someone engages in precisely the same activity to control badgers, with the same weapon, ammunition and training, in the same place? If someone can answer that question I should be grateful.

The fourth myth is that the cull has increased police costs. The history of the hon. Gentleman in the animal welfare movement is perfectly reasonable, but I venture to suggest that had it not been for animal rights activity—violence, intimidation and damage—carried out in or around the cull areas, there would have been no need for any policing costs. The only policing costs are to do with policing animal rights activity. They have nothing to do with the cost of the cull itself.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Simon Hart]

I give way, because no one else gave way to my hon. Friend.

[Ian Paisley]

It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to take pity on me; don’t cull me.

The only body that has been sanctioned for its activities in connection with the issue is the RSPCA, which has today been accused by the Advertising Standards Authority of being alarmist because of what it has said.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

I have 21 seconds left, so I shall say that farmers do a fantastic job. They have been through hell in the past 20 or 30 years, and animal welfare organisations have been involved only in the past few years. To my mind, for my family, in my area and for my constituents, farmers are the celebrities we should listen to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

This is a very difficult, complex, sensitive and not straightforward issue, but despite all that, I have always been in favour of a targeted pilot cull; I just need to explain why. Perhaps it will be helpful if I describe a bit of the context from which I come. Before I entered public life, I was a livestock farmer; that was my occupation. We lambed the sheep out on the hills, and nothing ever gave me more pleasure than seeing a badger. It was a rare sighting 30 or 40 years ago and a great thrill. I have always been very proud of the fact that we had badger setts on my farm and we protected them. I do not farm those animals any more, but I still insist that the badger setts and, indeed, all wildlife are protected.

Another aspect of the context in which I speak is that I have always had a huge interest in wildlife. I was a trustee of the Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust before coming here and retain an active interest in developing diversity and balance in our wildlife.

The aspect of the context in which I speak that is perhaps most relevant to today’s debate is that I was a Member of the National Assembly for Wales for eight years until 2007, and for most of that time I was the Chairman of the rural affairs Committee—it had one or two different names. During that period, bovine TB and the control of it was a huge issue for the Welsh Government. In fact, we went to Ireland on a fact-finding mission. We met the various bodies in Ireland, including the badger protection association. When we came back, it was interesting that one of the members became a Minister in the Labour-led Government in 2007 and introduced a piloted cull. It was complex at that stage to introduce a law in Wales, and they made a mistake in the legislation. The intention of that Government for four years was to introduce a targeted piloted cull in Pembrokeshire, and that is what would have happened, only they made a mistake in the legislation.

In 2011, a new Minister took over and decided to introduce a system of vaccination. There is now another new Minister. If I had been allowed to intervene on the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), that would have been the question that I asked: what discussions have there been in terms of the view that he was taking and the Welsh Minister? To me, this is crucial. If vaccination would work, everybody would be in favour of it.

[Simon Hart]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the advice of the chief vet in Wales to the former Government in Wales was exactly the same advice as she gives now to the current Government, which is that a cull is the best way forward?

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, principally because it gives me another minute. I actually welcome the fact that there is a different process involving vaccination taking place in Wales, because a number of people are saying that it would be much preferable to move to a system of vaccination, and how could I not agree? But ever since I have been involved in this issue, which is probably about 40 years, I have always been told that an effective vaccination is probably about 10 years away, and the situation is not much different today. It is possible to vaccinate badgers; I am told that in Wales, it costs about £662 per vaccination. Every badger has to be caught every year. All the discussions I have had suggest that what is happening in Wales will not work, will not be cost-effective and probably will not be repeated.

One or two Members have referred to different types of vaccinations. I think they are great, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is open to all such suggestions. We want a way of dealing with a hugely complex issue that causes the death of huge numbers of perfectly healthy animals, which disrupts and causes massive distress to a huge number of farming families, and which disrupts and causes disease among our wildlife. We need a way of dealing with this. In the short term, I think we need a targeted pilot cull to make certain that we know that going down the cull route is the best way to deliver what we want.

Wildlife Crime

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Benton, to serve under your chairmanship in this debate. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who usually does a sterling job in steering her group of colleagues to impeccable conclusions, and this report is no exception. I welcome the Minister to his new position. I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I know that he brings to his new role not only a wealth of experience and knowledge but a great deal of passionate commitment, and I look forward to working with him.

It has been a good debate. We have gone over many aspects of the original EAC report, but I still have a few issues to highlight. First, there is a need for the Government to clarify their position on controls of the possession of certain pesticides, in view of the effect that they can have on wildlife and the way they are used in wildlife crime in this country. I refer to the supplementary evidence that was submitted to the Select Committee by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and particularly want to draw it to the attention of the Minister. Currently, offences occur as a result of improper storage and use of approved pesticides contrary to the statutory conditions. The improper storage and use of pesticides that have had their ministerial approval removed is, of course, an offence. There are also examples of people storing legitimate pesticides specifically for attacking wildlife in this country, and they are escaping the law at the moment.

Carbofuran is an example of a pesticide that has had its ministerial approval for use removed, but can still be properly stored in England. Section 43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 creates an offence of possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife proscribed by the Secretary of State. That is a method of ensuring that we capture the storage of those pesticides for illegal purposes—where they are being used to kill wildlife. An order listing the prescribed pesticides could be made, which would deal with that issue.

In Scotland, a list of eight pesticides has been prescribed—aldicarb, alphachloralose, aluminium phosphide, bendiocarb, carbofuran, mevinphos, sodium cyanide and strychnine—under the Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005. We need such legislation in England. We have the provision for it under the 2006 Act, and the RSPB, in its supplementary evidence to the Committee, made a strong case for legislation. I hope the Minister will look at the matter seriously. It is one way in which the pesticides used in poisoning wildlife in the UK could be brought under control. A full enactment of section 43 NERC controls would be a powerful tool in the fight against wildlife crime and the illegal poisoning of wildlife in particular.

As I have said, that offence in Scotland has shown its value with at least 10 successful prosecutions involving at least four of the products on the current list, one of which involved the possession of 10.5 kg of carbofuran. Let me put that in perspective. That amount of carbofuran is enough to poison the entire Scottish population of birds of prey six times over. I recommend that the Minister considers such legislation. It is a remedy that is easily available to him. It has proved its efficacy in Scotland and should be replicated in England.

On the subject of birds of prey, I want to echo the wise words of the Chair of the Select Committee about raptor persecution and vicarious liability. No one should underestimate the true effect of raptor persecution on some of the UK’s most endangered species. According to the Government-sponsored joint nature conservation committee report on hen harrier conservation, 2013 was the first year in which there was not a single successful breeding pair in the UK. That is extraordinary, and I know that the Minister, although new to his position, will take the matter seriously. There is enough appropriate habitat in the UK to support 324 to 340 breeding pairs of hen harrier. Today, we have zero breeding pairs.

As for the peregrine falcon, the goshawk and other raptors, it is absolutely clear that someone is more likely to see a peregrine falcon from the terrace of the House of Commons than they are on a walk through the north-west Peak district. Why? That is a question that the Minister should ask himself. The Committee was entirely right to focus on vicarious liability, because without vicarious liability we will lack a key piece in the puzzle—highly intensive, driven grouse moors with irresponsible owners. At this point, I will say that there are many grouse moors that are sensibly, properly and responsibly managed. However, we all know that there are also irresponsibly managed moors, and the evidence shows that they are having a devastating effect on the populations of some of Britain’s most iconic birds of prey.

The EAC report shows a clear understanding of that problem. Of those convicted of raptor persecution, 70% are gamekeepers. There is no getting away from that fact and it is something that the Department must address by looking seriously at vicarious liability.

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

I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will also recognise that the population problems—particularly with regard to hen harriers, which he referred to—is not restricted exclusively to areas where there are either amateur or professional gamekeepers. Indeed, I also hope that he will concede that even RSPB reserves have failed to establish any breeding pairs of hen harriers. So, I hope that he is not implying that this problem is purely down to one cause, and when the Minister responds to the debate I hope that he, too, will take that point on board and recognise that the problem is a little more complex than that.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is, of course, right that there are many and complex reasons why a species may become extinct in the UK. However, the fact is that the species that I am talking about is on the brink and is being persecuted by some irresponsible gamekeepers. That is absolutely clear.

I welcome all that the game industry is doing in terms of distraction feeding and so on; it is making serious efforts. However, some irresponsible gamekeepers shoot raptors and they have a vendetta against hen harriers in particular. That must stop and the way to achieve that is through vicarious liability.

We are pressed for time and I want to leave the Minister enough time to respond to the debate. Four key points have been raised today by colleagues. First, which chief constable is currently responsible for the national wildlife crime unit? We need to know that, because the person we all thought was responsible has been suspended. Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that the NWCU will continue beyond 2014, and will he consider incorporating it into the Department’s three-year funding cycle as part of its base budget and stop this nonsense of one-year roll-on? Thirdly, will he commit to running a more effective convention on international trade in endangered species regime domestically, under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997? Fourthly, there has been an impassioned plea to stop the illegal slaughter of elephants, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out. Incidentally, I just say to him that the pangolin is a scaly anteater; it is Manis manidae. However, it is a mammal, even though it has scales. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite correctly, the connections with al-Shabaab, Janjaweed and the Lord’s Resistance Army. This is big business, and it is big criminal business. For that reason, I heartily endorse his remarks and hope that the Department will take this issue very seriously indeed. If it does not, its staff will look very silly next year at the meeting next February to discuss international wildlife crime, which we are hosting.

Badger Cull

Simon Hart Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Continuing on the same note as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), in my speech I will encourage the Government to do as they say they will do, which is consider and keep available to them all the tools in the box, including vaccination. I, like the hon. Lady, believe that vaccination offers the most effective means of getting on top of this disease.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the impact that bovine tuberculosis has on farming communities. To see how it has affected farmers in west Cornwall over the past 30 years, people need to talk to farmers and understand the impact of getting TB reactors in their herds. The impact is not only financial, but emotional: there is an effect on confidence in the farming community, because many farmers live in fear whenever vets come round to undertake the tests. It is vital that people fully appreciate that.

We would all claim that we support a process of evidence-based policy making, but today’s debate demonstrates the constant risk among politicians of using policy-based evidence making, whatever one’s perspective. Having looked at the balance of evidence provided by the best-informed scientific expertise on this question, especially from those involved in the RBCT and others, it is clear to me that the Government are running a high risk of making the situation worse in those areas where they proceed with the cull. I simply point that out.

I strongly supported, as did all parties at the time, the previous Government’s approach and the randomised badger culling trial. In my area, I faced down strong opposition from animal rights activists and others to the proactive cull in particular, so I have been there, done that and run the gauntlet of strong and extremely vociferous protests. As I say, there is a high risk that we could end up making the situation worse.

The Ireland study has been referred to on several occasions. It is worth saying that the four areas selected were among the most isolated in the country, and had badger populations that were extremely small and disparate. The nature of those populations is quite different from the nature of the badger population in Great Britain; the likelihood of migration and perturbation was bound to be significantly lower in the Ireland populations. We cannot say that the situation in Ireland is representative of what we have in the UK.

On vaccination, Professor Rosie Woodroffe and I are working on a proposal. We have been to see the Minister with responsibility for farming, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who has been supportive of us developing our proposal to roll out, using volunteers, a five-year vaccination programme across the whole Penwith peninsula—200 sq km—which clearly has the hard edges of the Atlantic around it. The Government’s estimated cost of about £2,200 per square kilometre would be significantly reduced by about 50% through the use of volunteers. We already have a large team of 50 or more volunteers who have come forward. We suspect that we can offer vaccination and wildlife holidays in the area for people who get involved in the programme. Clearly, only a very few people who are trained and licensed to undertake the actual injection of the vaccine are needed.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the complexities of dealing with the physical act of vaccinating a wild animal?

[Andrew George]

Absolutely; that is fully understood. Indeed, many people working on our wider advisory group are already doing this work. We have consulted the Killerton estate in Devon, which has been doing this for a couple of years. Professor Rosie Woodroffe is trapping badgers in that area at this very moment; she is working with farmers on her own programme, which is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge going into this, as well as understanding of the challenges of rolling out such a programme. I have a great deal of experience of this, too. We believe that we can proceed with a very effective programme, with the proper support of landowners in the area, though taking on 200 sq km is a significant challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think that we are at the stage of the afternoon when there is almost nothing left to say; anyway, that will not stop me.

This is, above all, a serious human tragedy. We have heard a lot about statistics and science. Some Members have not had the opportunity to do this, but for those who think that there is still time to reconsider their views on this whole saga, I urge them to talk, just for a few moments, to one or two of the people affected, and to look at the online videos that are available, to get a feel for what the impact really is. While we have been having this debate, five or six farm animals, in many cases perfectly healthy, will have been killed. That will have come at a cost to the taxpayer, but above all it will have come at a serious cost to the farms in question—not just a financial cost but a big emotional cost to people whose animals are their way of life. I urge all Members on both sides of the House who have not had that experience to find out about it before they finally make up their mind on the rights or wrongs of this proposal.

I want to stick to two matters—vaccination in Wales and animal welfare. Much has been made of the Welsh experiment in north Pembrokeshire, next door to where I live. In an area of 10 miles by 10 miles, 1,424 animals have been vaccinated at a cost of £662 each. Let us not forget that that cost comes not just once but every year. Forty per cent. of those animals will already be suffering from TB and will therefore be completely unaffected by the vaccination, so it will have been carried out at the taxpayer’s expense with no benefit whatsoever. Moreover, the population estimates are pretty inaccurate. The Welsh Assembly’s estimate of 1,200 to 2,500 has a pretty wide margin, and more animals than its minimum estimate have already been vaccinated. When the shadow Secretary of State talks about the benefits of the Welsh model, I urge her to bear in mind that it is a long way from being anything like definitive, and we will not have the results for some years yet.

On animal welfare, the contrast between cruelty and suffering has often been debated here. There is a claim, which I happen to disagree with, that aspects of the cull are cruel. They may be ethically questionable, and I respect anybody who takes that view, but badgers that are shot humanely—I am talking about instant death—do not suffer. Death is not a welfare issue but the means are a welfare issue.

I want to refer to comments that were made a few years ago by people who were opposed to these proposals, particularly those involved with the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports, and the Burns inquiry into hunting with dogs. Their view on the method of shooting that is currently proposed is interesting. The RSPCA said:

“Shooting is widely held to be a humane method of control in skilled hands”.

The LACS said:

“Culling should be carried out by the most efficient and humane means available. In practice we believe this means the use of high-velocity rifles by users who have passed a competency test or by humane trapping.”

A few years later, we are suddenly told that those methods apparently do not apply to a badger cull. The RSPCA pre-empted this by suggesting that there is a huge difference between shooting a badger and shooting a fox. The guidelines given to the marksmen make it very clear that they must have the right weaponry and the right ammunition, and they must be at close range. These weapons are, by the RSPCA’s own admission, in the hands of very skilled people. One or two of the organisations that are now making a loud noise about the suffering element need to refer to their own files to see that these are the very methods they recommended for wildlife control not that many years ago. Apparently at that time they expressed no concerns about the possible danger that those methods of control might have caused to members of the public, farm animals or people in the areas where culling was, and still is, a perfectly routine activity.

We are looking at a pilot cull in two areas that will take out, at best, less than 1% of the UK badger population. It has been frustrating to hear Members say time and again that this is the only solution. Everybody who has been involved in this debate on either side of the House should recognise that it is part of a package of measures. It will not necessarily have an instant, or even very full, effect quite yet. I support the position of the British Veterinary Association and of the National Farmers Union. Above all, I support the bravery of the Government in eventually fulfilling their promise to the farming community to deal with this problem.