Badger Culling

Debate between Paul Flynn and Simon Hart

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I think that you, Mr Paisley, would come after us if we went down the road of discussing the merits of devolution and having a different set of policies in Wales, which I suspect might be the only way to achieve those aims. However, I have no problem with proper evaluation, and I suspect that the Government have none, particularly given the importance of science, of which we are rightly frequently reminded. As the hon. Lady said herself, it is a pilot scheme, and we are fairly early in the lifetime of the project. To come up with figures now that present an absolute position on where we are and where we should go is a little premature—not necessarily that premature, but the moment is not quite with us.

I have two further points. Reference has been made to the Irish comparison. I made some brief inquiries when we went to vote in the Divisions just now. To suggest that the culling in Ireland was a success, but that it has given way to a different regime that is a resounding failure, is again not an absolutely accurate reflection of the position. When herd breakdowns occur in Ireland, as they still do, an epidemiological investigation is held in the area, followed by an absolutely thorough cull. The idea that culling forms no part of the Irish Government’s approach to eradicating bovine TB is a misrepresentation of what is happening.

We have talked about the cost of vaccination. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned a figure of about £672 annually for a vaccine that is irrelevant in dealing with badgers already carrying the disease, making the injection a completely pointless and expensive approach. There is some doubt about the exact number—I have not been able to ascertain it for 2016-17—of infected badgers that have been unnecessarily vaccinated recently.

[Paul Flynn]

It seems extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman brushes aside the fact that Ireland has slaughtered 96,000 badgers without any beneficial effect. If he wants to know about the number of infections, he should ask his Government to test the slaughtered badgers. Tests have been carried out on roadkill badgers, and the percentage contaminated with TB is very small indeed—about 5%.

[Simon Hart]

I suspect that the Minister will deal with the second part of that intervention. As for the first part, I will say only that the Irish Government would not deem their approach to the eradication of bovine TB quite the failure that the hon. Gentleman portrays it to be.

On the cost of culls and/or vaccination, I agree that both figures are eye-wateringly significant, but very little attention seems to have been given in this debate to the cost of the disease to taxpayers, farmers, contractors and the great supply chain that survives on agriculture. If the Minister was to mention the damage done to the economy of rural Britain as a direct consequence of this as-yet-unsolved problem—he probably has the figures at the tip of his tongue—the figures that the hon. Gentleman has quite reasonably mentioned would pale into insignificance.

The British Veterinary Association has been mentioned. Like many colleagues, I am not a scientist, but I hope that I am reasonably practical about these issues. However, I have not spent a career in this area of science, and neither have most of my colleagues, so often what we are treated to is a debate among high-powered, articulate people representing entirely opposite views. As juries who must listen to expert witnesses occasionally find, it is sometimes difficult to separate fact from opinion, and genuine, current science from bogus science. It is sometimes difficult to get a proper measure. That is why—I should have declared my interest; I apologise for forgetting to do so at the beginning of my speech—I refer to and rely on organisations such as the BVA.

To my mind, of all the organisations from which we take evidence and to which we listen, one stands out from the crowd as scientifically focused, objective, sensible, measured and, above all, more experienced on this issue than any of us ever will be. The BVA has done all that for us: listened to the science, filtered out the nonsense from the good sense, and listened to farmers and—I hope—politicians. It has done all that, and has come to this conclusion, which I mentioned just now but will mention again:

“BVA believes badger culling in a targeted, effective and humane manner is necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a significant contributor to the presence of bTB in cattle.”

That is not just the pro-cull members of the BVA versus the anti-cull members; it is a policy position from one of the country’s most respected veterinary resources. Frankly, as much as I would love to know more, my view is that if it is good enough for the BVA, it is good enough for me.

Fuel Poverty (Wales)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Simon Hart

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am reminded of a debate that took place when I was the Opposition spokesman on pensions—if hon. Members can remember that; it was in the dark age of Thatcherism—in which the then Minister suggested that elderly people should go to jumble sales and buy coats to put on, saying that they would get good value. That was only a few months after Edwina Currie suggested that the elderly should go to bed with bobble hats on—that was the then Government’s Dickensian approach. It was a happy occasion, because a group of Welsh MPs had the only fax machine in the House at that time, because faxes were suspect and not allowed—all that could be attached to a telephone line was a telephone. A group of officials came to inspect the installation of our wood-burning fax machine, which cost an enormous amount and was built like a steam engine. However, that meant that we could ensure that news of the Tories’ answer to fuel poverty—jumble sales—went out to the nation so that people would realise what it was.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) said in his speech. I welcome the fact that he is acquiring the same reputation for wisdom and restraint as his predecessor in the House, and we look forward to further improvement. He drew attention to, but did not dwell on, the fact that fuel prices are crucial. Something extraordinary has happened, which nobody forecast: America has had a huge boost to its economy because it has low fuel prices, mainly as the result of fracking.

A new gas-fuelled power station recently opened in my constituency, the gas for which comes from Scandinavia. It is situated precisely on the confluence of the River Usk, through one window, and the River Severn, through the other window. Fuel comes all the way across to Wales, but twice a day a huge cliff of water comes up the Severn and down the Severn, and up the Usk and down the Usk, wasted and unused. The cheapest electricity in the world comes from the tidal power station at La Rance in Brittany, which has been going for 47 years. The capital costs were paid 27 years ago, so the fuel is of course free. The turbines are in pristine condition and it produces electricity regularly and cleanly from a non-carbon, eternal fuel source, and no one takes a cut. There is a similar, slightly bigger, power station in South Korea.

In Wales, the tides washing around our coast 24 hours a day are our North sea oil, but we neglect them. There are serious problems with the barrage—building a wall across the channel—because it is open to so many environmental objections and has a huge cost, but a very acceptable alternative, which would be equally rich in providing power, would be a series of turbines in the water, perhaps in lagoons, linked to a pump storage system such as the one in Dinorwig, meaning that when pulses of energy arrive at 3 am, we can store that, as with a large battery, for use later in the day. That is the cleanest, cheapest, most sophisticated and best way to produce energy.

We have heard about the dearest way to produce energy this afternoon, as we are going ahead with a nuclear power station. While it is not in Wales, a large part of Wales is within a radius from it that is the size of the uninhabitable area around Fukushima. What if there was a disaster? There have been tsunamis in the Severn channel—they were many years ago, but they have taken place. We did not get much information about that from the Secretary of State, who had said, when he was a Liberal Democrat, that nuclear power could come only through either a rigged market or a “vast”—his word—subsidy from the taxpayer, yet he has managed to get both in the proposal. The current negotiations started with a strike price of £50 per megawatt-hour, but The Times and The Daily Telegraph now tell us that the price being negotiated on is £97 per megawatt-hour—nearly double.

[Simon Hart]

One or two of my constituents who are watching the debate would be interested to know when the hon. Gentleman might make some points about fuel poverty as it affects constituents in Wales.

[Paul Flynn]

Fuel poverty is about the cost of the fuel. I am sure that there will be great cheers in the main Chamber tomorrow if we hear the expected announcement that the price of petrol and diesel will be frozen—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will be cheering and it will be welcomed. The consequence, however, is that fuel will be cheaper, so there will greater congestion, more pollution and more accidents. The more the price of fuel goes down, the more unnecessary journeys are made. We have less congestion now, fewer accidents and less pollution. Many people—almost half the population—are directly involved in that, but everyone is involved in paying for gas and electricity. They should be the first consideration, but there is no attempt to freeze those prices.

An extraordinary deal is on offer. We have seen fuel prices drop in the US. We are, however, in a position whereby Centrica, E.ON and RWE—all of them—have left the proposed deal, so the only people in the negotiations at the moment are Électricité de France, which has a €33 billion debt. If it was not nationalised, it would be bankrupt. It wishes to do a deal in the short term in which British taxpayers pay it £30 billion in subsidy. According to Tom Burke, an expert in nuclear power, the subsidy will be £150 billion over 35 years, and a Liberal Democrat spokesperson today suggested that it would be £99 billion. That is from a coalition that said that there would be no subsidy on nuclear power. We will be told the result only when it has been negotiated, but the deal will burden those in fuel poverty for 35 years. We are betting for that period. Who will benefit? Not British industry, but French industry, so the advantages will go there.

The Government seem to be hellbent on producing fuel that will be increasingly dear. Fuel poverty will not go away if we irresponsibly decide on the dearest means of producing energy in the world. If hon. Members want another example of that, they can look at the two other Électricité de France new nuclear power stations at Flamanville and in Finland. One is four years late and the other is six years late; one is €5 billion over budget and the other is €7 billion over budget. Who can suggest that the one at Hinkley Point is going to be any different? It will cause anxiety throughout the area, because every 10 years we have a nuclear disaster, and there is likely to be another one, either due to terrorism, an accident or—

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Simon Hart

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Williams, to serve under your firm control. This debate is important, and I should begin by saying that I have some history with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which will not entirely surprise fellow Members. We go back a good 20 years or so. I am a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, and in that role I probably came into contact with the RSPCA as much as almost anybody in this room. I have argued with it on several points, mainly in a civilised manner, and I have disagreed with it on many things, although I agree with it on more things than some people might imagine. There is therefore much on which we can find consensus.

For a start, let us remind ourselves that the RSPCA was created 189 years ago by a Conservative MP—a pro-hunting Conservative MP, I should say—called Richard Martin. He said:

“It would be ill judged for it”—

the RSPCA—

“to become known as a prosecuting society and the prime aim should be to alter the moral feelings of the country.”

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

I am sorely tempted to say yes, but I will say no for the moment.

That is why we are here. The RSPCA can be, and often is, a huge force for good, particularly at a local level; that is why I was a member for many years. The debate is not about country sports or the differences of opinion we might have about animal welfare; it is about the RSPCA’s role as possibly the most prolific private prosecutor in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

No, I am not saying that. As I will say later, the manner in which the RSPCA goes about its prosecutions needs to be more in line with the relationship between, for example, the CPS and the police: it need not be the closed shop it currently is.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Simon Hart]

I do not think that I can resist the hon. Gentleman any further.

[Paul Flynn]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all lawbreakers should be prosecuted, unless they are found to be rich, powerful or Tory?

Parliamentary Lobbying

Debate between Paul Flynn and Simon Hart

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, but the problem is that the public will, with some justification, believe the worst of us after the expenses scandal. They had all those assurances before. The excuses will not work, and we need clarity and simplicity in the way we behave. It is entirely wrong for a Member of Parliament to be employed by a company—£30,000 is a substantial amount, many times the minimum wage—and, having taken that money, to raise subjects on which the company concerned is campaigning, and then say, “Of course, this is about the interests of my constituency; it approached me on the issue.” That is what the hon. Gentleman in question says. I believe that the public are right to be suspicious of us, and I refer to the words of the Prime Minister in that regard.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman consider it permissible to do that for nothing?

[Paul Flynn]

No. The position is this. Someone may want to lobby on a subject, but what a Member is allowed to do should be a question of their interest, conscience, constituency and so on. If someone who is taking a considerable sum of money from an outside body appears then to be pursuing its business—what it is asking for—that is extremely foolish and dangerous. I have explained that at length and had a long conversation with the Member in question. I believe that there is only one Member in that position.

When I came into Parliament 25 years ago, probably a majority of the Members in one of the parties took money from outside sources. Some were openly referred to as the Member for this or that company. In the previous Parliament, one was referred to as the Member for Boots, with some justification—there is some truth in that view of things. We are Members for our constituencies, and are paid handsomely for our work. We are paid a full-time wage. We should not have income from outside. There is a splendid book on the subject, which I commend to hon. Members, that suggests that all MPs should put any income they receive above their salary into a charity fund. That would do something to restore the public’s trust in us.

What else has been going on? New interest in the debate has been precipitated by the Werritty scandal. That will continue and other hon. Members might want to speak about it. We have allowed honeyed words to be used, and have talked about a blurring of the ministerial code, when we know that what happened was a flagrant abuse of the code. The investigation will continue, and many matters arise from the Werritty scandal, which should be of interest to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely what we should do. We must take a puritanical line with ourselves to ensure that the public believe us. When the public read about what is going on and see the drip, drip of stories about links between MPs and others, they will assume that we are all in the business of being influenced by outside sources.

[Simon Hart]

I have spent the past 18 months encouraging constituents to lobby me, either as individuals or in groups. We have to be careful that we do not say, “A plague on all your houses”. Some constituency lobbying is extremely valuable, informative and educational, and we should encourage it.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to hear from a former lobbyist. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s previous career was lobbying for the abuse of small, loveable animals for fun—that was his message. I am sure that he would have found a welcome in the current Government if he was still lobbying for animal abuse, which is what he believes in and is his passion.

[Simon Hart]

If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I recall that he was rather supportive of a donation of £1 million to the Labour party by the Political Animal Lobby, which he supported hugely, in the 1990s.

[Paul Flynn]

I certainly supported all animal welfare groups for many years in my political capacity, which is what my constituents want.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Simon Hart

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

In the first world war there were pages in newspapers listing the fallen and those missing in action, so it would not have been practical then, but it is practical in this conflict. Sadly, we are still losing soldiers—about one soldier a week dies in Afghanistan—so it is absolutely right to continue reading out their names and making such announcements. The Government should not stop doing that. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees that MPs should be forbidden from reading out the names of the fallen, but I do not think that was a reasonable decision. I have challenged it and been stopped and I am sure that you would stop me now, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to read out the names of the fallen.

We really must pay tribute to Brian Haw. On nights when we have finished here and gone out, even in the middle of winter and sometimes in the early hours of the morning, he has been there, night after night, with his simple, anti-war message. Whether we agree with him or not he deserves our admiration and we do not need any attempt to sweep him and his companions out of sight to have a cosmetic effect on the square for an event that will be forgotten in a few years’ time.

I agree entirely with those who have said that the right to protest is honourable. It is a matter of pride when visitors come to London from countries in which any sign of protest would be swept away from their well-manicured streets and tourist attractions. The majority of the world’s countries would not allow such protest to take place in such a situation, but we are better and more advanced than them, and we should be proud that we have the right to protest. It is not available in the House, as it might be, but it is in Parliament square.

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

I join the diverse coalition of interests championing the right to protest in Parliament square, but I suspect that that is where the similarity between my interests and theirs comes to an end. Suffice it to say that the Government’s proposals take us a long way towards the goal we are all attempting to reach. Some Members might be aware that between 2000 and 2004 I was responsible for eight protests, in different forms, in and around Parliament square, six of which were resoundingly successful but two of which were not. I shall explain why things went wrong on those two. In each circumstance there were conditions that made it almost impossible for the police to safeguard the community and the protestors in a reasonable way. We are getting away from that situation and I commend the Government for their measures in that regard.

In championing the rights of legitimate protest, there are three areas that I want to address—accessibility, affordability and spontaneity. My first point on accessibility is fairly obvious: most protestors need to have the necessary access to make their point while the interests of other users of Parliament square and this building, as well as those of members of the public going about their business, are safeguarded.

Affordability is a rather different issue. It must be in the interests of those of us in this House and outside it to ensure that people who wish to protest can do so with the minimum of obstacles in their way in the lead-up to their protest. If any protestor has to go through a process that involves going as far as obtaining a licence in some instances—not in this one, I add—we will be putting obstacles in the way of those who wish to register, often in the only way they can, their distaste for what we are doing in this House.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s tolerance for protest extend to defending those who invaded this Chamber in support of a cause that he represented?

[Simon Hart]

I shall say only that I am surprised that it took so long for that point to be made. I prefaced my contribution by saying that I was going to discuss legitimate protest, so I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I want to discuss spontaneity. It is vital that we enable people who wish to do so to rise up in anger, frustration and exasperation and express their view loudly and lawfully in the minimum amount of time. If there was a problem with the previous legislation it was that the preparation time for protest was rather lengthy if people followed the measures sequentially. The Government’s proposals will ease that, which is why I am a big supporter, but it is right and proper to enable people who have read the papers one morning metaphorically to bang on the gates the next morning. If we prevent them from doing so we will fall into the trap to which most speakers have referred of setting one set of rules for our country while condemning those in other countries who adopt a different procedure on protests.

I have referred to the two occasions on which protests in which I was involved went wrong. The first took place in 2004, and there was a legitimate presence of angry protesters as well as of police to ensure the safety of the community. The protesters came that day with every intention of being peaceful, and the police policed the event with every intention of its remaining peaceful. However, Members who have taken part in a protest know that it is a potent and often high-temperature environment, and it does not take much to spark something that leads to a sequence of events which, in our case, led to 425 complaints from members of the public, about 60 people being treated in hospital for serious head injuries, a number of arrests, and an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that lasted nearly a year, cost a fortune and regrettably resulted in a number of Metropolitan policemen being recommended for disciplinary action or worse. That was a thoroughly unsatisfactory conclusion to what should have been a perfectly legitimate protest.

We could debate the cause for hours, but I will suggest one particular reason why it ended up in that unsavoury position. Both parties were the victims of legal rigidity. In the case of the protesters, there was arguably not enough flexibility to enable nearly 20,000 people at one stage to engage in reasonable protest. From the police’s point of view, the confines or boundaries were set too tightly to enable them to adapt and adjust their policing as the protest unfolded over the day. When the IPCC report was eventually published, it focused on three things including, first, a complete breakdown of communications for technical reasons between the police and the protesters. That is not an issue for the Government—it is an issue for protesters and police in future—but the second and third reasons are important.

The IPCC confirmed without any doubt that the lack of loudspeaker equipment in the south-east corner of Parliament square led to an inability by the organisers and the police to communicate with a crowd that was contained and angry, which led to unfortunate downstream consequences. That happened because there was confusion about whether Westminster city council, I think, would allow us to have loudspeakers lest we contravene noise abatement conditions. In the circumstances, the police, in my humble opinion, should have had the operational ability to insist on having equipment on site that could have prevented that incident from arising in the first place.