Bottom Trawling: Marine Protected Areas

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I probably do not need to do this for a former Leader of the House, but I should point out that I am going to call Chris Grayling and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, as is the convention in a 30-minute debate.

COP26 Conference Priorities

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Members will be aware that social distancing no longer applies, but Mr Speaker has encouraged us to continue to wear masks. Given the hybrid procedures, there have been some changes to arrangements. The timings of the debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made, and there will also be a suspension between debates.

Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of the debate, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. Mr Speaker has asked me to remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they should be visible at all times to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members have any technical problems, they should email the clerks at [e-mail]. I also remind Members to clean their spaces when they arrive and as they leave, and by all means feel free to remove your jackets.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the priorities for the COP26 conference.

I want to place on record how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us today’s debate and likewise how much I appreciate the support of my cross-party co-sponsors, especially the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who addressed the Committee in my absence.

In a year dominated by coronavirus and the brilliant efforts of our scientists and the health service to overcome this terrible threat to our way of life, we must not lose sight of the huge importance of what lies ahead of us this autumn. In November, COP26 in Glasgow will be the biggest international summit the UK has ever hosted, on a subject that remains the single most significant long-term threat to our security, economy and environment. This is the first full debate that we have had on it in the House.

The extraordinary weather events that we have recently witnessed in Germany and Belgium have reminded us just how serious the threat of climate change is. The facts are clear: if left unchecked, climate change will render vast swathes of the world, including parts of our own country, uninhabitable and trigger a huge upsurge in poverty, mass migration and political instability that will have ramifications across the whole planet. On current trends, the world economy could be 10% smaller if we do not hit net zero by 2050. It is not just for the sake of our environment that we need to act; it is for the sake of our economy and security.

This is our problem, and it is the challenge of our generation. In that context, we should all be delighted that the UK, and specifically my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), has assumed the COP presidency at this vital time.

Six years ago in Paris, the world came together and agreed a robust framework for action on climate change, committing to limiting temperature rises to an absolute maximum of 2° above pre-industrial levels by 2050 and to pursuing efforts to limit those rises to 1.5°, which would avoid the very worst effects of climate change. COP26, under our presidency, represents the first raising of ambition envisaged by the so-called ratchet mechanism of the Paris agreement, whereby each nation must submit updated emissions reduction plans covering the period to 2030. The decisions we take this year are therefore absolutely crucial to keeping that 1.5° cap within reach, and I hope today’s debate will focus on what those decisions need to be. We do not need a big, new global deal—the Paris agreement remains the right foundation—but at home and abroad it is time to turn promises into action, and COP26 is our forum to make that possible.

I know that our country will lead by example. We can be rightly proud of what we have achieved so far. Our emissions have nearly halved since 1990, while the economy is 75% larger. We were the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. We have world-leading plans to cut emissions by 68% by 2030 and 78% by 2035. We have announced the almost total removal of coal for power generation and boast a raft of important policies in the Government’s 10-point plan for green growth.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels. What we have done has allowed us to keep pace with the seriousness of events. We will have to continue to stretch ourselves if we are to get ahead of the problem and deliver net zero by mid-century. On decarbonisation, for example, the trickier half of the battle is still to come. With home heating and insulation, heavy industry, agriculture, aviation and shipping, the clean solutions we need cannot simply be left to work themselves out. There is a clear case for the Government to take a lead, to mandate priorities and enable solutions, as has happened so successfully with the contracts for difference mechanism, which has delivered a market-led solution whereby offshore wind is now cheaper than new gas-fired electricity generation. That is a really good example of how Government and the market can work together to deliver the most effective solutions at the least cost to the consumer.

In that same spirit, we need leadership from the Government now to support more research into new technologies such as green steel and to back technologies such as heat pumps, helping to reduce costs and enhance performance, as well as protecting those who cannot afford them.

This whole process will undoubtedly generate costs. It will also create economic opportunities. The UK has been adding low-carbon jobs at nearly three times the rate of the whole economy in recent years, and these are sustainable jobs in sectors with huge growth potential and are disproportionately in parts of the country with high historic unemployment rates.

My home region of Teesside is a really good example of that. The recent announcement by GE Renewable Energy that it is creating 2,250 jobs in our new freeport zone, manufacturing offshore wind turbine blades, is just the tip of the iceberg. Last week, 8 Rivers Capital and Sembcorp Energy UK announced the Whitetail Clean Energy project at Wilton, a 300 MW net zero power station, which will create 2,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. That is on top of the immense potential of technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to create good jobs for the long term.

Moving to a nationwide focus, a proper home insulation scheme, a major heat pump roll-out and significant research and development in the hardest to reach sectors all have immense economic potential. We need to make bold policy decisions in these areas now, and we will reap the rewards for the environment, our quality of life, the economy and the wider world as we export good policy and technologies overseas. Set against that, we always need to remember that the cost of our taking action would be dwarfed by the cost of doing nothing.

I want to look more broadly at our wider strategy for carbon and how we will engage with our partners to encourage the most effective possible global response. The COP26 President-designate deserves huge credit for the clear increase in ambition shown by the number of major emitters, including countries and private companies, that have followed our lead and adopted net zero targets. It has been especially heartening to see countries such as the United States and Japan joining the many who have done so. We need to maintain intense diplomatic activity to encourage others to follow their lead and to show that it is possible to decarbonise without jeopardising economic growth. The targets and commitments really matter.

Hon. Members will also recognise that long-term ambition, while welcome, is meaningless without the action required in the intervening period in order to get there. The world is still falling short in that area. The UK, the United States and the EU can all boast strong 2030 nationally determined contributions, but too many other large polluters have insufficient near-term targets and, frankly, in some cases, no real plan as to how to achieve their goals.

To give some idea of how seriously off track we are, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we would need to almost halve net greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 levels by 2030. However, before the pandemic struck, global emissions had continued to rise every year since 2010. The Paris agreement does not contain mechanisms to enforce action, so we rely on diplomatic carrots and sticks to persuade and cajole those nations hoping for a free ride to do their duty now and make significant emission cuts. Without a significant increase in the level of ambition and, especially, action during this decade, across the whole world longer-term net zero targets will fall at the first hurdle, and we will miss the opportunity to keep that 1.5° goal within our grasp well before we get to 2050. The urgency of the situation is clearly real. Every tonne of coal we burn, every hectare of forest we fell, and every house we fail to insulate in 2021 is part of the problem.

For many countries, especially those in the Caribbean, the Pacific and large parts of Africa, which make little or no significant contribution to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions but which bear the brunt of the impacts, action is going to be hard, and in some cases probably impossible, without our help. At the 2009 Copenhagen conference of the parties, developed nations agreed to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance to support developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. Again, that pledge has not been met—estimates vary but they all show a significant ongoing shortfall. COP26 should be the moment that promise is honoured, and that should be a key negotiating target of the United Kingdom delegation. If we use climate finance wisely, we can help developing countries enjoy more jobs, better infrastructure and more trading opportunities. We should be clear that the UK is showing real leadership here, driving agreement at the G7 to end funding for overseas fossil fuel projects and doubling our climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years. However, we must use our COP presidency to ensure that our friends and allies follow our lead, because failure to do so would be a huge obstacle to progress.

COP26 will be a huge conference and it has a lot to live up to. There is more I could add, but looking at the call list for this afternoon, and it is great to see so many Members here, I am conscious that I should leave time for others to contribute. My main point in closing is to re-emphasise that we must rise to the level of events this autumn. It will be the last chance, frankly, that this sort of conference lands on our watch in the timeframe we have to deliver meaningful action.

The UK has a great story to share about our own progress, and we can set out a compelling template for the next stage of progress for other countries to follow, in a way few others could match. In a debate that sometimes becomes obsessed with targets, language and process, we need to show true British leadership at COP26 because it is the time for action and it is our chance to make sure that that clarion call is heard around the world.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We have a full house for this debate. If everyone sticks to four minutes, we will get everyone in. If not, someone will miss out or we will have to impose a reduced time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Finally, no Westminster Hall debate would be complete without Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman raised that crucial point in his speech. That is why we are using our diplomacy to get other countries to help to commit to get to this sum, and it will be a key focus of the meeting he mentions. I was about to flag it up, but I now do not need to, because he has done it for me. And that comes ahead of COP26.

In conclusion, we have a momentum building up with that G20 leaders summit. We even have events with a COP26 focus, such as the Chelsea Flower Show. People will understand much more about what COP26 is about when they see plants and other things that will help us in climate change and in tackling the crisis.

COP26 will be a pivotal moment in securing our path to global net zero emissions by 2050. Together with our Italian partners and with leaders from across the globe, we will work to prevent global temperatures rising above 1.5° C. This is absolutely crucial. We have to act now; we cannot wait until we get to the end of the century, and we get to 3° C, and literally it will be a crisis. I think we all understand that. I believe that everyone in this room, whatever our views about whatever else, is all agreed on that, and that we must work together, using this COP26 opportunity and our influence on the global stage, so that we can literally save the planet.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Mr Clarke, I think you have about 35 seconds to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I explained earlier, in any trade negotiation it will be for the UK to determine what goes into the so-called sanitary and phytosanitary chapter, which addresses these issues. As I also pointed out, there is currently a prohibition on the sale of any poultry treated with a chlorine wash.

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

Some 75,000 people work in meat processing in this country. Meat processing plants have been linked to the spread of the virus in many countries, and we have had convincing evidence from Professor Wood at Cambridge and Professor Semple at Liverpool on the risks at these plants. What measures specific to food processing plants has the Minister put in place?

[George Eustice]

Very early in this crisis, we worked with Public Health England on guidance for these plants. It included, in some cases, spacing out staff on the production line to maintain a distance of 2 metres, and, where that was not possible, ensuring that things were arranged so that staff were facing away from one another. It also involved increased hygiene, new measures on canteens and guidance on car-share arrangements. As I have said, as a result of the three outbreaks that have occurred, we are reviewing those matters.

Food Security

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I should apologise for being late: I have been reshuffling on my own and it took a little longer than planned. I call Derek Thomas to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure we can avoid a time limit and get everyone in if Members observe a bit of discipline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come to that.

It is worrying that, despite all the work that has taken place over the last 10 years, we are still receiving anecdotal evidence from farmers that they are under strain from prices. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives referred to the pressure on milk prices. I am keen to hear from the Minister—I have come here specially—how the Groceries Code Adjudicator is getting on. When we set up the all-party group, we spent a year preparing a report on the critical issues and the measures that needed to be implemented to help dairy farmers. We came up with two solutions. One was a groceries adjudicator to regulate and control the supermarkets and to make them realise they could not continue with their pernicious actions towards farmers and suppliers. We also called for a limited badger cull to control bovine tuberculosis.

When we took those proposals to the then Secretary of State, David Miliband, we were laughed out of his office, being told that both were ridiculous and not feasible. I am pleased that under the Conservative Administration we have seen progress on them, but I am keen to hear from the Minister what additional powers he will give to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, how the adjudicator is getting on and what further needs to be done to ensure that supermarkets comply with the important proposals that we set out.

On bovine tuberculosis, which my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) mentioned, in 1997 we slaughtered 47 cows in Shropshire as a result of bovine TB. Last year, that figure was over 2,000. I have been with some of my dairy farmers—I have referred to this in previous speeches—on their farms after their entire herd has been taken away. One farmer and I sat together at his kitchen table and cried unashamedly together, such is the raw emotion of what happens to farmers and their families when herds are taken away for slaughter and such is the extraordinary pressure they face with finance and devastation of their herds after all the work to create them. It is important to take action to deal with bovine TB.

Interestingly, what is the biggest organisation in Shropshire? It is the Shropshire Wildlife Trust with 5,000 members. What is the trust’s symbol? The badger. Some people in the trust would like me hanged from the nearest lamp post—they would have difficulty as I am so tall at over 2 metres—because they believe it is appalling that any Member of Parliament could advocate a badger cull. It is a polarising issue and they feel strongly about the need to protect badgers.

I have sat on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, taken hundreds of hours of evidence from scientists and professors from around the world and heard how bovine TB has been eradicated in France and many other countries with a cull of badgers being part of that process. It is extremely important that it is considered. I would like the Minister today to give an update on the badger cull trials and, if they have been successful, to say, when they will be rolled out in other parts of the country and whether he will consider Shropshire as one of the next places for the cull to be implemented.

I am passionate about British exports and pay tribute to a colleague, Martin Oxley from UKTI. I have worked closely with him in exporting Shropshire dairy products to Poland. I want the Minister to be aware of the tremendous success of UKTI in exporting not just Shropshire dairy products, but many British dairy and agricultural products to Poland. It may be like selling coal to Newcastle because Poland is an agricultural country, but we must not forget how strong the British brand is. The international perception of animal husbandry and its excellent quality in this country, which is unsurpassed, and the quality of the British brand are why marketing attempts to sell British agricultural products abroad have been so successful.

I would like to hear from the Minister what is happening in UKTI to continue to prioritise British exports. I recently met Lord Maude, who has taken over the strategic management of UKTI. I would like it to have a dedicated team supporting the export of British agricultural products, and I would appreciate further updates from the Minister on collaboration between his office and UKTI.

I have asked the Secretary of State to visit Shropshire this year and she has promised to visit either the Shropshire show or the Minsterley show, which are our two main shows. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee came last year and went down extremely well. It is very important that farmers have the opportunity to meet politicians and the people at the head of DEFRA who make the decisions. I am still waiting to hear which show the Secretary of State will visit, but she has promised to visit Shropshire this year and I would be grateful if the Minister will pass that on to her and ensure that she—or indeed he himself—comes to one of the main agricultural shows in Shropshire this year.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

If the remaining speakers take between six and seven minutes each, we will be able to accommodate everyone, including the Front Benchers, and give Mr Thomas a moment to reply.

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Provided an application is received by the deadline, there is provision in the EU regulations for it to be amended for a period of weeks after that. My hon. Friend’s suggestion of a payment on account while an application has not been received would not fit within the EU regulations, but we have made progress in getting that deadline extended to 15 June, and I have asked the RPA to take a sympathetic view towards farmers who are struggling to get their application in and who may want to amend those details after their form has been submitted.

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

When the Paymaster General boasted to the public services 2030 conference just 20 days ago that under this Administration the words “Government” and “IT” no longer induce visions of failed IT projects, is it safe to assume that he did not know about this situation?

[George Eustice]

As I pointed out, we have not abandoned anything. The core of the system is working and will still be used. What we are doing is ensuring that the information provided, in many cases on paper, to the RPA will be entered by digitisers working for the RPA, but it will still go into an electronic system.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), a fellow West Ham United supporter. I congratulate all the colleagues who lobbied for the debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), whom I also congratulate on an excellent speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to have this debate, and the dozens of constituents who e-mailed asking me to participate in the debate, particularly Peter and Annie Walker, who I know are following the debate this afternoon. I thank all the animal welfare groups listed in the motion, especially the Dogs Trust, on whose briefing I will rely heavily in my remarks.

I hope to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the number of Members who wish to speak. I have some points to make and a few questions to ask, all of which have, I think, pretty much been raised already. What struck me among the briefings from all the different groups was the similarity and consistency of the points raised. They spoke about the conditions of puppies in breeding establishments; restrictions on the number of litters; consistency of inspectors’ visits; easier and clearer enforcement of legislation by local authorities; the publication of the Welsh Government’s draft breeding regulations; the use of microchips to track puppies to breeders; the updating of sales legislation to take in the internet; and enforcement and implementation of the pet travel scheme regulations, particularly in relation to illegal imports.

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

On that last point, does my hon. Friend think that the changes to the scheme due to come into force later this year are sufficient, or should we take a closer look at this European trade? Is it not one European trade we could do without?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I was going to comment on later. The Minister kindly afforded a meeting to me and colleagues, as well as animal welfare groups, to discuss that very issue. We pressed him on the matter; he is clearly concerned about it and the officials were very much on the case. I hope he can give us an update today. DEFRA clearly recognises that there is a problem and has been working on it and making progress, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that that work will continue.

The argument for a ban on pet shop sales was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, and I am sure the Minister will respond to that case, but will he also comment on enforcement by local authorities? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said that her local authority is very good, but it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether enforcement is consistent across the piece—it seems to have been suggested that some local authorities are better than others—and what DEFRA and DCLG are doing to make it more consistent. Could the information supplied to breeders be made clearer?

Several of the briefings I received mentioned the Welsh draft breeding regulations. Does DEFRA regard those as helpful? Does it intend to replicate them, or will the Department wait to see whether they are passed in Wales? How helpful will microchipping be? Concern about the database has been registered. Will the Minister respond to questions about unscrupulous or even illegal advertising of puppies and kittens? I understand that DEFRA supported the voluntary scheme from the Pet Advertising Advisory Group; does the Department intend to go further and make that a regulatory requirement?

Finally in this section of my speech, I wanted to ask about illegal imports and the efforts of DEFRA and the Home Office in that regard.

Flooding

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I would like, on the record, to thank him, and my predecessor, for the tremendous work that they put in during their time working on these long-term programmes. What is fascinating about this statement is that it has flushed out the fact that the Labour party will not match our very ambitious long-term programme for flood defences.

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

A constituent of mine has seen his flood risk premiums double to almost £2,500 in 12 months. Does the Secretary of State honestly believe that his Department is doing enough, quickly enough, for people such as Mr Clayton?

[Mr Paterson]

The statement of principles, which was the ad hoc arrangement left by the previous Government, was always going to end on 30 June last year, and I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues had done very little to prepare the ground for a replacement. After very detailed negotiation with the ABI, we have come to an agreement on a new programme. The relevant measure is going through the House as we speak, and he will have an opportunity to comment on it in the debate on the Water Bill later this afternoon.

Water Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that not only would small businesses and micro-businesses in commercial premises not be covered by Flood Re, but people who run businesses from their own homes would find it almost impossible to get insurance under the arrangements as they stand?

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I believe that homes generally are covered. Our Government have persisted with his Government’s arbitrary choice of 2009 as the relevant year, although this is a new Bill and we have a still relatively new coalition Government. I was very taken by what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) said in a previous debate about 2009 having been plucked from the air as an arbitrary date, and many people will not realise that homes built after 2009 on a floodplain are simply not covered by insurance. One of the purposes of tonight’s debate is to entice the Government to seek a different year—it could be 2013 or 2015, but let us be imaginative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 5, but I also want to touch on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) about Flood Re. I was intrinsically involved in the tortuous and detailed negotiations with the industry to try to come up with something from zero when the coalition Government came into office. We had urgent and overdue discussions about what would replace the statement of principles. All hon. Members would agree that it is absolutely right that this needs to be scrutinised by the House, with ongoing scrutiny of how it works. I hope that the Minister will agree that flexibility should be built into it to enable it to be changed as circumstances change in years ahead.

However, on behalf of my constituents, who suffered some of the worst flooding in the south of England in 2007 and have continued to face flooding in certain areas since, I beg the House not to unpick the detailed negotiations that have resulted in the Flood Re proposal before the House. For example, if we started to introduce a wide range of businesses into the scheme, that would completely change the complex mathematical—probably algorithmic—calculations that will make it viable. I want as many properties to be included as possible, but if we start to say that we want it to include band H houses, different types of businesses, and houses built after a certain date, hon. Members have to understand that that would come at a cost. The cost might be that the industry walks away and that we have nothing, with constituents who live in areas at risk of flooding facing the really terrifying prospect, when we have the kind of weather we are currently experiencing, of not being able to get insurance. The affordability factor that we have managed to build in would be gone, so I just urge the House to have a little caution when—rightly—scrutinising this Bill, which I really believe is right and should become law as quickly as possible.

I want to speak about new clause 5, but I should have started by reminding hon. Members about my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been accused of obsessing about over-abstraction, and I have been obsessed about it since long before I entered the House. More than 20 years ago, I set up an environmental body relating to a small river in my constituency, the River Pang, which is a chalk stream. It was one of the National River Authority’s ALF—alleviation of low flow—schemes. We managed to stop over-abstraction by a water company at the top of the aquifer and to restore the river. It is currently in desperate need of further restoration, as are others in my area, particularly the River Kennet. It seems strange to talk about over-abstraction when many of our rivers are overflowing at this time, but it is nevertheless a very serious issue. The River Kennet is a site of special scientific interest, and has overlaying European and national designations. It is an example of a river for which we have to find a better solution.

When I was in the Minister’s role, I would dearly have loved to bring meaningful abstraction reform before Parliament, but it would have been wrong to do so. As has already been said, we have been dealing with a regulatory system that dates back to the 1960s, when people did not mention the words “climate change” and we did not have the levels of population and demand that we now face, particularly in the south and east of England. When the consultation and all the work being done by the Department and the Environment Agency is over, I know that we will have about 30,000 abstractions that affect the livelihoods of our constituents and the ability of their businesses to perform and that have a huge impact on our environment. I hope that the House agrees that we must get the system right, and that we legislate in haste and repent—in opposition—at leisure. I hope that we get this right, and that the reassurance the Minister will be able to give us will set my mind, and those of other hon. Members, at rest.

I have said that the problem is complex. Organisations such as the WWF have been a fantastic help to the Government and hon. Members in our thinking about how we should deal with over-abstraction. I regret that the abstraction incentive mechanism originally hinted at in the water White Paper has been diminished in relation to its ability to address abstraction where it will cause real problems to the environment. I hope that it comes forward in the future as a very useful tool that values water differently where it is scarce and where it is plentiful.

There are technical measures in the Bill that will not be talked about in the Dog and Duck, but that are groundbreaking—perhaps game changing would be a better description. The change from using the environmental improvement unit charge method of assessing over-abstraction to putting it in the five yearly price review is a major one that will make a big difference to how we deal with the environmental damage that is caused by over-abstraction.

I looked closely at new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and other Members. I wondered whether it might be an elegant way forward. However, I think that it would face problems. There would be problems in getting the legislation through Parliament. It undoubtedly uses Henry VIII clauses and would give a dramatic power to the Committee Corridor, as opposed to the whole House. That would concern many Members of this House and would certainly concern Members in another place, where they do not like Henry VIII clauses. I hope that the Minister will address that in his remarks.

I then looked at how such secondary legislation would implement the abstraction reforms that we want to see and that will result from the current consultation and the implementation of a new scheme. If that could all be dealt with in the obscurity of the Committee Corridor to a level that satisfied my concerns and the concerns of the many organisations that are worried about over-abstraction now and in the future, that would be fine. However, the use of secondary legislation is a limiting factor. I regret that in my time as a Minister, I did not get my head around what an abstraction Bill in the next Parliament would look like. I suspect that it will be a relatively complicated document. That legislation would be diminished if it was dealt with as secondary legislation, as under new clause 5.

I hope that the Minister will give two assurances. First, I hope that he will address the concerns that were put eloquently by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and my concerns about whether such legislation would deliver what we want it to deliver. The second assurance is perhaps an impossible one for him to give, but I will ask him to give it anyway. I hope that he will give an assurance that the Government are as determined as they were when they put together the water White Paper—a document that was roundly welcomed by Members in all parts of the House, the industry, NGOs and every stakeholder I can think of—that abstraction reform will be followed up by his party and mine, and hopefully by other parties, and that it will race through the House in the early years of the next Parliament so that we can see meaningful abstraction reform that addresses the problems that blight so many rivers. This is not just an environmental problem; more fundamentally to many of our constituents, it is an economic one. Not only do we rely on rivers and aquifers for aesthetic reasons and leisure activities; they are fundamental to our economy. That is why it is so important that we get abstraction reform right. I hope that the Minister will give us those assurances this evening.

[Steve McCabe]

I will be extremely brief and confine my remarks to Flood Re. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), if this is the best that three and a half years of intense negotiations can produce, I am not sure that congratulations are in order. As I understand it, the scheme will cover only a fraction of the 6 million homes that are deemed to be at flood risk.

I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, if it is true that there is a 60% chance that the scheme will fall into deficit, and if, as Professor Diacon, who was asked to review it, said, it relies on luck in the first place, what are the contingency plans if the scheme falls apart? Secondly, what will be the trigger for the Government to intervene on the insurance companies if insurance premiums for everyone else, who will not be covered by the scheme, continue to rise to such a point that they cannot afford them?

Badger Cull

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I know it is about vaccines, but it is extraordinary that it does not mention the Government’s main control strategy.

I want to return to the badger numbers. Last year, the farm industry estimated that there were 1,800 badgers in west Gloucestershire and 2,700 in west Somerset. The Government’s figures then rose: they estimated that there were between 3,000 and 4,000 badgers in west Gloucestershire and between 3,000 and 5,000 in west Somerset, and that is why the culls stopped.

This year we have a different set of figures: it is estimated that there are between 2,500 and 4,000 badgers in west Gloucestershire and roughly between 2,000 and 3,000 in west Somerset. If we are dealing with ranges of figures, that causes a problem. We are licensing people to kill 70% of the badgers, but if the numbers are at the lower end of the range, the licensed marksmen could kill 100% of the badger population and still not meet their licensing criteria. That is a really difficult position to put farmers in.

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

Is it not the case that free shooting is being adopted because it is simply the cheapest way to kill? If the Government are committed to a culling strategy, there are more effective alternatives. Free shooting is cheap—we are getting killing on the cheap.

[Mary Creagh]

That is right. The free shooting method is being adopted because cage trapping and shooting is much more expensive—it is 10 times more expensive. Of course, there is a risk to the taxpayer if anything goes wrong in the cull areas. A bond has been laid, but we do not know how much it is. We are completely in the dark about the risk to the taxpayer should the Government have to step in to conclude the culls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I will take one more intervention, but I do want to give other hon. Members the chance to speak.

[Steve McCabe]

The Secretary of State is drawing on these European comparisons, so why does his own amendment talk about “stringent” movement controls, given that we have the loosest movement controls in the European Union, with about 40% of our cattle being moved annually? Surely he should start by doing something about that. Is that not a comparison he should recognise?

[Mr Paterson]

I do not think that is a very accurate statement. We have very strict movement controls and our farmers find them difficult to adhere to; they put real pressure on farmers.

If we are to tackle bovine TB, we must not only maintain rigorous biosecurity and strict cattle movement controls, but bear down on the disease in wildlife.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot-on to recognise the key role of the Commissioner, as this is a European competence, and that is why I spoke to him today. I am pleased to record that he was extraordinarily co-operative. We are going to fix up a meeting—at very short notice—with him and the key Agriculture Ministers some time this week. The point my hon. Friend raises is definitely one that I will make clear to the Commissioner at that meeting.

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

Even allowing for the Secretary of State’s rather laid-back approach, does he not think it might have been smarter to advise that guidance be issued to schools and hospitals a little earlier than 10 o’clock last night?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with my demeanour. I am as active as I think he will find is necessary on this issue, having been at it for many, many days now. More importantly, the advice that the FSA has given to suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons—it is exactly the same as that given to retailers—is clear. Unless the FSA recommends that a product be withdrawn, the public, schoolchildren, prisoners and those in hospitals should have faith in the product.