Bovine TB

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Today I am setting out the next stage in the bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England.

Bovine TB continues to be a major problem in England. In 2010, nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England and the cost to the taxpayer is set to top £1 billion over the next 10 years. The problem is particularly bad in the west and south-west of England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to their being affected by the disease, causing much distress and hardship.

As I explained in my statement in July, cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions, and the removal and slaughter of infected animals, remain the foundation of our TB eradication programme. We have already strengthened cattle controls and will continue to do so. The Government are working in partnership with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to further promote good biosecurity and to provide advice and support to farmers. We also intend to invest a further £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible.

We know that to tackle this disease we need to look at each and every transmission route, and that includes transmission from badgers to cattle. Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, but there are practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to administer it. As I told the House in July, we are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but usable and approved vaccines are still years away and we cannot say with any certainty when they will be ready. In the meantime, we cannot just do nothing.

This terrible disease is getting worse and we have to deal with the devastating impact it has on farmers and rural communities. It is difficult to quantify or put a monetary value on that, but a report by the Farm Crisis Network describes the feelings of panic, stress and emotional devastation for farming families as they repeatedly have to send their cows to be slaughtered.

I think that we would all agree that we need to stop the disease spreading further, bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. Evidence tells us that unless we tackle the disease in badgers, we will never eradicate it in cattle. No country in the world that has TB in its wildlife has been able to eradicate it in cattle without addressing it in the wildlife population. In July, I set out revised proposals for controlling the disease in the badger population. In order to reduce TB in cattle in the worst affected areas we proposed to allow a controlled reduction carried out by groups of farmers and landowners, as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. The policy would be piloted in two areas in the first year.

Following the responses to the consultation that we launched in July on draft guidance to Natural England, the policy has been further refined. I am now in a position to announce that we will go ahead with a pilot of the policy in two areas next year, to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. An independent panel of experts will oversee and evaluate the pilots and report back to the Government, and we will then decide whether the policy should be rolled out more widely.

This has not been an easy decision to make, and it is not one that I have taken lightly. I have personally considered all the options and evidence, and at present there is no satisfactory alternative. Today, I am publishing a detailed policy document, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office after the statement. We need to strike a balance between taking the actions needed to control and eradicate the disease, maintaining a viable cattle industry and using our resources in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Badger control licences will be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, to enable groups of farmers and landowners in the worst-affected areas to reduce badger populations at their own expense. Guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence will have to meet to ensure that the pilots are carried out safely, effectively and humanely.

Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified through the randomised badger culling trial, we can expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years relative to a similar unculled area.

Licences granted by Natural England will be subject to strict conditions based on evidence from the randomised badger culling trial, which are designed to ensure that the result is an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where culling takes place. Applications for licences will be considered only for an area of at least 150 sq km over a minimum of four years, and with the pilots to be conducted by trained and proficient operators. Groups of farmers will have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers at the edge of culling areas such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs, to minimise the perturbation effect in places where disturbing the badger population could cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area.

The Department has assessed the known and estimated effects of badger culling and vaccination, and its veterinary and scientific advice is that culling in high TB incidence areas, carried out in line with the licence criteria, will reduce the number of infected badgers, and thus the weight of TB infection in badger populations in the treatment area, more quickly than vaccination. It will therefore have a greater and more immediate beneficial impact on the spread of TB to cattle and the incidence of infection in cattle.

Nevertheless, we still see a useful role for vaccination, particularly in the future, and I have listened carefully to the views of groups that would like to help develop a vaccination programme. To support and encourage vaccination, DEFRA will make available up to £250,000 in each of the next three years to help meet the costs of badger vaccination in accordance with a badger control plan, with priority given to areas where culling is licensed. We will also support staff or volunteers of voluntary sector organisations wishing to train to carry out vaccination.

I look to the farming industry to show that it takes its responsibility very seriously and that it is committed to delivering the programme effectively, safely and humanely. That will be carefully monitored in the pilots, and on an ongoing basis if the policy is rolled out more widely.

To select the pilot areas, I will invite the farming industry to bring forward a shortlist of areas, from which DEFRA will select two. Those two areas will then be invited to apply for a culling licence. Natural England will assess the applications against the licence criteria and decide whether to grant them a licence.

After the conclusion of the six-week pilots, from what we observe and learn, and taking into account the evaluation by the independent panel, we will take a decision on whether to roll out the policy more widely. Following the pilots, if we decide to proceed with a wider roll-out, a maximum of 10 licences will be granted to start each year.

Ensuring public safety is a key concern. In finalising the policy, we have worked closely with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to scope out the role of the police in supporting those licensed operations.

I know that there is great strength of feeling on the issue, but I also know that we need to take action now before the TB situation deteriorates even further. We need to tackle TB from all angles, using all the available tools. I am acutely aware that many people oppose badger culling and I wish that there was a current satisfactory alternative. However, we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in the areas worst affected by bovine TB. The impact of that terrible disease shows us that we need to act now. We cannot keep delaying.

In making the decision, I have considered all the evidence and have listened to the full range of views. Having listened to all sides of the debate, I believe that this is the right approach.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We recognise that bovine TB is a devastating disease—that is why the Labour Government spent £50 million on randomised badger culling trials. Any decision on a badger cull must answer four key questions. Is it science-led? Is it cost effective? Is it humane? Crucially, will it work?

The independent scientific group on cattle TB, which reported on Labour’s trial culls, stated:

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

The Secretary of State quotes scientists who told the Government that TB in cattle will be cut by 16% over nine years if the cull is carried out by trapping and then shooting the animals. However, her culls will not be carried out in that way. They will depend on farmers hiring people to free-shoot badgers at night—a method that has never been scientifically assessed as a way of controlling bovine TB.

Perturbation occurred in the first three years of Labour’s trial culls when badgers were humanely captured. What scientific advice has the Secretary of State sought or received on the likelihood of free shooting increasing the perturbation effect, which will reduce that 16% net figure still further?

Is the cull cost-effective? The right hon. Lady’s statement was curiously silent on the costs to farmers, yet DEFRA estimates that it will cost farmers £1.4 million per cull area. Farmers will need to prove they have the funds to complete the cull in the event that one pulls out or sells up. How will she access those funds in the event of a default? Who will access those funds, and on what basis? How will the money be held—in an escrow account or in joint names? How will liability be shared between farmers?

What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer taxpayers that the costs of completing a four-year cull will not fall on them in the event of those indemnities disappearing or becoming the subject of protracted legal wrangling? How many staff will the right hon. Lady need to issue those cull licences? What is the cost to the taxpayer of hiring those extra staff at Natural England, a body that has shed nearly 500 staff since her disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review?

We know that the Home Secretary has warned the Secretary of State against proceeding with the cull. Will she confirm that the culls will not start until the Olympic games are over? Will she confirm today that trained firearms police will be needed to police any public protests against the culls?

In the Secretary of State’s 2010 consultation, she estimated the costs to the police at £200,000, yet today’s report has revised those costs up to £2 million per cull area. If 10 cull areas are licensed every year, that is a compound cost of £20 million a year to the police. Will she confirm that DEFRA will meet those costs in full? If so, from which budget, given that the Department has had a 30% cut? How will local police forces access those funds?

In written answers to me, the right hon. Lady estimates that the cull will save the taxpayer £2.9 million in each cull area over 10 years. With 10 cull areas set to go ahead from 2013, that is a saving of £2.9 million a year, which is just 3% of the £85 million cost of testing and compensation to farmers. Will she therefore confirm that the costs of bovine TB will continue to be borne by the taxpayer?

The third question the Secretary of State must answer is this: is her cull humane? In 2010, 48 people were prosecuted for offences against badgers and 29 were found guilty. The police wildlife crime unit is concerned that illegal badger persecution will be carried out under the pretext of culling. Who will monitor cull licences and how will the conditions of the licence be monitored? She mentioned a six-week cull period, but how can she ensure that farmers will not go beyond that?

Between 60,000 and 120,000 badgers will be killed over a four-year period depending on the number and size of cull areas, yet in the Secretary of State’s statement, she curiously failed to mention the new national badger count announced this week, which will cost £871,000. Surely she should have commissioned that survey before announcing her pilot culls. How can we measure the impact of a cull on the badger population when we have no scientific baseline? What measures is she taking to prevent the extinction of badger populations in cull areas, and how will she ensure we remain in compliance of our international obligations under the Bern convention?

Finally, will it work? The scientific group warned that

“several culling approaches may make matters worse”.

Is not the Secretary of State in danger of sleepwalking into a disaster by licensing badger culls, the method of which is unproven and untested, and which could make things worse? The Government have constructed the ultimate game theory test for farmers in TB-hit areas: join in the cull or face increased TB in the herd from badger perturbation. How will the views of farmers and landowners in areas affected by perturbation be collected and considered? What happens to farmers who do not wish a cull to proceed on their land? How will the Secretary of State ensure the health and safety of the people carrying out the cull and disposing of infected carcases, the police firearms officers policing the cull and the protesters who will undoubtedly turn up at cull sites?

Today’s announcement is bad news for wildlife, bad news for farmers and bad news for the taxpayer. The cull will not be cost-effective or humane and it will not work. In “Yes, Minister”, Jim Hacker said: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.” Today the Secretary of State has turned her back on the scientific advice. Page 11 of her own document states:

“It is a matter of judgement, not science, whether the farming industry can deliver an effective, coordinated and sustained cull.”

I hope she has got everything crossed.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady asked a lot of questions so I will answer them as quickly as I can. First, I should point out that this is a science-led approach to the pilots and that when in office the previous Labour Government spent £50 million on trials. The science is important and this Government have responded to what was learned from those trials. We learned that culling could be more effective if the boundaries of the control area were firm ones, to reduce the perturbation effect. In addition, the ground she cited—she said that the cost would be prohibitive—overlooks that fact that the farmers have agreed to pay. I encourage the shadow Secretary of State to look at the long tail from that trial. Five and a half years after the analysis, the trial continues to provide a benefit in reduced TB incidence in those areas.

The method to which the hon. Lady referred—controlled shooting—is commonly used to control other wildlife populations, such as deer, foxes and rabbits. We therefore have reasonable confidence in our assumption that the method will be both effective and humane in relation to badgers, but, to be absolutely clear, those who undertake the culling will be required to have deer-stalking level 1 proficiency or equivalent, and they will be required to undertake an additional course to ensure that they understand badger physiognomy.

On cost-effectiveness, in the end, it is up to farmers to choose whether or not to be part of a controlled reduction of badgers in their area, but the Government make a requirement that groups of farmers form a limited company that puts aside in a bank account the four-year cost of the culling programme plus a 25% contingency, which deals with the hon. Lady’s point about the contingency cost.

Natural England’s existing staff will contribute to the programme. The overall cost to the Government of £6.22 million over 10 years must be seen in comparison with the overall cost of the unchecked progress of the disease, which will be £1 billion a year or more to the taxpayer over the next 10 years. The costs need to be seen in the context of the overall burden on the taxpayer.

I have had helpful and constructive conversations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it is up to the police to deal with the precise operational details of ensuring public safety throughout the pilot process. We should not simply extrapolate an estimated cost from the pilots, as, I am afraid, the hon. Lady just did. Part of the point of the pilots is to establish more precisely what the exact cost will be. I have agreed with the Home Office to share those policing costs in so far as additional and reasonable costs are incurred.

On humaneness, we can be assured that Natural England will monitor the cull licences very carefully. If any farmers should be so minded to exceed the six-week period, they would obviously lose their licence. I do not believe, therefore, that that will happen.

It is important to remember that the species is protected but not endangered. The last time the population was surveyed—in the 1990s—there were between 250,000 and 300,000 badgers in Great Britain. Of course, the previous Labour Government had ample opportunity to launch a survey if they had wanted to, but this Government have seen fit to do so. That is important in ascertaining the population in the controlled areas. We have satisfied ourselves that the Bern convention would not be breached by the policy that I have proposed.

Finally, I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. She said that a matter of judgment and not the science alone drives this decision. If the previous Government had exercised their judgment and acted when they had the chance, the disease, and the cost of dealing with it, would not have escalated to the point it has reached today.

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

Farmers and wildlife conservation groups will welcome the statement. The badger population must be controlled. Any constituency that produces so many cattle, including mine, lives in fear of one rogue animal entering the chain.

Will the Secretary of State address what the position will be when we have a vaccine in place, given that the meat of vaccinated cattle will not be allowed into the food chain? We have the time to address that. Will she bear in mind the conclusions of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report adopted in the previous Parliament, by which current members of the Committee stand?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is singularly well qualified with her experience in the European Parliament to know how difficult it is to get the law changed there. It is currently illegal to vaccinate cattle and to sell or export that meat. We would have to get the 26 other member states to agree to a change in the law. We must accept that that would take many years.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State be clear with the House about what level of mortality she expects shooting to achieve, because the very clear advice that we received over many years as Ministers was that shooting would not achieve a level of mortality high enough to make any difference to the disease at all? She is allowing only a very short six-week period for the pilots, which cannot be credible.

[Mrs Spelman]

The science determines the level of mortality that must be achieved for the controlled reduction to be effective, and a 70% reduction in the badger population is what the RBCT trial showed had to be achieved. One key point of the six-week pilot is to confirm our assumption that controlled shooting will achieve that level of reduction in the badger population.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is a devastating disease. We must hope that this policy will help and not make the situation worse. In the implementation of the culling policy, how will she ensure that there is a proper and rigorous estimate of the badger population and also that there is a proper count of those badgers that are culled within the area and not outside it?

[Mrs Spelman]

I commiserate with my hon. Friend because his part of the country has been the most badly affected by this terrible disease. Natural England will carry out a survey of the badger population before any culling takes place and will also check that the percentage of badgers culled fits the criteria set out in the pilot.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Should not the clarion call go out from this House today to all the right-thinking, compassionate people in this country to frustrate this cruel and unnecessary slaughter of animals? Is it not right that this has been founded on greed and bad science by the nasty party?

[Mrs Spelman]

I hope that an hon. Member is not calling on the public to break the law; that would be very unwise.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The compassionate people in my constituency will very much welcome the great thought, care, attention and bravery of the Secretary of State and her team in tackling this issue. I particularly welcome the investment by the Government in the voluntary trials for vaccination. Perhaps the Secretary of State could give us a bit more information about them, because, ultimately, those trials are what we all want to see.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have said, this is a difficult decision and it is not one that I have found easy to make. Having spoken and listened to all the stakeholders involved, I understand that the cost of training someone to take part in the vaccination programme is significant, so I hope that with the money that I have announced today, we will be able at least to halve the cost of that training.

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

Rather than pursuing this cruel and counter-productive cull, what consideration did the Secretary of State give to reducing the trend towards increasing intensive dairy farming? Around 80% of bovine TB transmission is thought to be caused cattle to cattle and that happens far more easily in crowded conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady is misguided in thinking that there is a link between the intensification of dairy farming and the incidence of TB in cattle. There is no evidence of that.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Farmers across North Wiltshire, many of whom have been devastated by TB and have lost their herd some two or three times, will very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today and will hope to be a part of the first 10, or even first two, trials. However, is she not concerned about the talk from Opposition Members about the security surrounding the cull? Is there not a risk that people will be enjoined by them and others to break the law in a way that was suggested by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)? Will she take steps to ensure that the precise location of the cull is not in the public domain so that such actions can be avoided?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have had very careful conversations with the Home Secretary and with the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding security. Like members of the public, people who are licensed to undertake a cull have every right to expect their safety to be protected. Careful analysis has been undertaken by the police and I respect their expertise and thank them for their assistance.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Let me follow on from the question of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). There is nothing in this statement about dealing with the problem of cattle-to-cattle transmission. All the evidence shows that that is a significant factor in spreading bovine TB. What does the Secretary of State plan to do about that? It seems that the only solution on offer is shooting badgers.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly.

[Mrs Spelman]

I refer the hon. Lady to the statement that I made in July, setting out the other important elements of the bovine TB package, of which controlled reduction of the badger population is just one part. We have strengthened measures on controlling the movement of cattle and expanded the areas for the testing of cattle. I know that that was very much wanted by the industry. As a west midlands MP, my farmers came to me and said that they would prefer to be part of the annual testing because they want to know more frequently whether their cattle are clear. In my July statement, all those strict measures were cited.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The year after Labour came to power, fewer than 600 cattle were slaughtered in Devon. This year, we are well on course for more than 6,000 to be slaughtered. Bovine TB is spreading remorselessly across the UK and many areas of the country will no longer be disease free unless we take action, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. However, does she not share the concerns of farmers in my constituency who feel that they could be targeted by violent activists? Will she assure them that those who carry out this very difficult task will have their anonymity protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

The whole House respects my hon. Friend’s medical expertise, and she is right to point out that the disease has spread—it has spread from the south-west to the midlands. That fact demonstrates that doing nothing is not an option. As for her important point about personal information, I can assure her that, in the interests of personal security, personal information will be kept confidential.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I should declare that I am a member of the British Veterinary Association, which I know will welcome the right decision at the right time under the right circumstances following the right evidence to get the right conclusions. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that her Department has stuck to its guns on this issue. It is important that we reach a solution. I welcome the conclusion of the report that the reduction of the incidence of TB in cattle will be achieved if we follow this licensing procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will ring the Ministers in the devolved regions and encourage them to follow these actions. We need to put in place a scheme such as this in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Spelman]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in close contact with other devolved Ministers. We should of course remember that Scotland is TB-free and would like to remain so. I hope that our policy will give it some comfort in that matter. I have taken the veterinary advice very seriously. It is the vets who point out that no programme of eradicating TB anywhere in the world has been successful without tackling the reservoir infection in the wildlife.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I know that farmers in South East Cornwall will welcome this news. Alpaca farmers will welcome it, too. Is the Secretary of State aware that bovine TB has been affecting alpaca herds as well as cattle herds?

[Mrs Spelman]

Sadly, there is no satisfactory test for TB in camelids, which includes alpacas, and that is a source of considerable concern. We will continue to work on that. Alpacas are included in our programme of trying to manage and control this disease.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

No one is suggesting that bovine TB is not a problem. However, why does the Secretary of State believe that what she proposes will work given the scientific conclusions of a 10-year pilot by the previous Government?

[Mrs Spelman]

When a programme of badger control was part of the original randomised badger culling trial, the science showed a clear reduction within the controlled area, and an impact on the edge of the area. We have proposed to build on that science base and grant licences to areas with more firmly controlled boundaries to reduce the perturbation effect. It is indisputable that the original trial saw, on average, a 16% reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle herds.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has quite rightly set out the sad decision that has had to be taken on this issue. She has also made it clear that the decision is based on the scientific evidence that was provided by the trials. Ongoing monitoring has shown there to be a lasting effect and that perturbation is only temporary. None the less, there will be those who, understandably, will have an emotional response to this issue. They may be inflamed by people in this House and elsewhere who are somewhat removed from the problem. Will she undertake to carry out as much publicity as she can and to work with organisations such as the British Veterinary Association to make the case for those who have an instinctive response and have not had the opportunity to consider the issues?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand that this issue excites strong emotions, but for those who feel strongly about it I point to the Farm Crisis Network report, which shows the devastating emotional cost to the farmers who lose their cattle. It is probably right at this point to pay tribute to the work done by Adam Henson and “Countryfile” to make members of the public more aware of the cost to farmers of the slaughter of their animals as well as of the impact on wildlife.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Secretary of State will know that the previous Welsh Government had intended a cull but the current Welsh Government appear to have had a change of mind. Has she discussed the reasons behind that change of mind with the Welsh Government? Furthermore, will she discuss the contents of her statement with the Welsh Government, given the substantial trade in cattle between England and Wales?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister of State is in regular contact with the Agriculture Minister. We meet regularly at Agriculture and Fisheries Council meetings that I invite the devolved Ministers to attend and at which we have ample opportunity regularly to share our approach to the control of TB. I shall have that opportunity at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council tomorrow.

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

May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, which is absolutely right for the farmers in my constituency whose cattle have suffered from this disease for many years? You have made the right decisions. If you tackle the disease in the wildlife, you stop it reinfecting the cattle every year, which is what has been happening for years. I thank you very much for acting on that. The only way they tackled the disease in New Zealand and Australia was by tackling it in wildlife.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s gratitude, but I think he will intend me to redirect it to the Secretary of State.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In New Zealand, the incidence of the disease in possums had to be tackled; in Australia, it had to be tackled among wild buffalo; and in Ireland, it was tackled in the badger population. No part of the world has successfully tackled TB in its cattle population without addressing the reservoir of disease in wildlife.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The wildlife trusts have said that the scientific evidence does not support the culling of badgers and could even make matters worse by disturbing the remaining badgers, spreading the disease further. How will the Secretary of State ensure that these short six-week pilots get the evidence base to demonstrate whether the wildlife trusts are right or wrong in their suppositions?

[Mrs Spelman]

I really must nail this point about the science. The science shows that if the badger population is reduced by 70%, TB incidence is reduced by 16%. That is what the original trial shows and we cannot get away from those facts. The judgment is whether the proposed method of controlled shooting will achieve that and that is the point of piloting it.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The farmers of south Wiltshire and around Salisbury will warmly welcome today’s announcements. Will the Secretary of State confirm that these new provisions will be kept under review to ensure that they are successful in tackling this terrible disease? If they are seen to be successful, will moves be made to extend them as soon as possible so that everyone can have the benefit of the trials?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I made clear, the two trials that will take place next year—probably at the start of the autumn—will cover a six-week period, after which we would expect the evaluation of those trials to take approximately another four weeks. The evaluation will be undertaken by an independent panel, the composition of which will be announced in the new year. Of course, we will keep that under very close review, as we will all the parts of our package of proposals to eradicate TB.

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

May I press the Secretary of State to say a little more about these trial areas of 150 sq km? Will all the landowners within that trial area have to sign up? If they do not, will the shooters be allowed to go on to their property to shoot?

[Mrs Spelman]

What is required for the pilots is access to 70% of the land, in line with the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial. We need access to 70% of the land. There is no element of compulsion on all landowners in the area, but 70% is needed as part of the limited liability company that a group of farmers would set up.

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

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today—this very day—cattle will be taken from the farm for which I have responsibility to be shot, because they were found to be reactors last week. I welcome the Secretary of State’s courageous announcement following the incisive scientific analysis by David King, but will she also insist that farmers play their part in maximising biosecurity and following all the regulations on testing and movement, too, so that we can maximise the effect of the announcement?

[Mrs Spelman]

I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman on the loss of those cattle. The front page of the Farm Crisis Network’s report brings home to anyone who has not experienced that what it feels like. One farmer said:

“I feel there is a constant dark cloud of uncertainty over me, causing stress, anxiety and fear.”

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman identifies with him. I assure him that all aspects of the bovine TB package, including strengthening biosecurity measures, will be available. It is a full toolkit to tackle this terrible disease.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The impact of bovine TB is as devastating to farmers, cattle and wildlife in Wales as it is in England, but the control of the disease in Wales is devolved to the Welsh Government. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that all the evidence, experience and information available to her will be shared with the Welsh Government so that the issue can be dealt with in Wales, too?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give that assurance. Of course, we will share with devolved Ministers all the evidence and experience from the two pilots as well as from the wider package.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a requirement, particularly in the pilots, for a strict count of the number of badgers culled, that there will be a requirement for those badgers to be tested to substantiate that they are suffering from TB and that in the long term, there will be a requirement that those areas that are going through vaccination will not also have culling at the same time?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Very strict requirements have been set out, and tomorrow I will publish the guidance to Natural England and he might wish to read that to see precisely how this will be controlled and how we will test the infection of badgers. On the point about coterminous vaccination and controlled reduction, it is important to remember that this is a package and the option we have chosen to pursue combines controlled reduction of the badger population with vaccination. Some parts of the area might not be suitable for one method of controlled reduction and boundaries might be secured by a programme of vaccination, too.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which I welcome? In view of our bitter experience in Wales with proposed trials, however, how confident is she that these proposals will not be subject to a legal challenge?

[Mrs Spelman]

Far from it: I think we can be reasonably confident that they will be subject to a legal challenge and that is one reason why we have taken the utmost care. We have taken our time and we have taken a precautionary approach, and every step of the way we have tried to ensure that we have a copper-bottomed reasoned analysis that is the basis of our judgment that we should proceed with this policy.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I am aware that more than 1,200 badgers have been vaccinated over the past 18 months in Gloucestershire in trials under separate projects from the Food and Environment Research Agency and the Gloucestershire wildlife trust to assess the practical use of a vaccine. I am pleased that the new vaccine plans have been announced today and they at least explain that we are trying different solutions to sort out this problem, which is a huge one in Somerset. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to assess the effectiveness and costs involved in that project in Gloucestershire and how will that inform the planned vaccination projects that are to come over the next three years?

[Mrs Spelman]

It will take some time—many years—before we can finally assess the effectiveness of the vaccination trial in Gloucestershire, but I went and saw it for myself and, as much as anything, it was about the practicalities of trapping and caging the badgers prior to injecting with the only vaccine that is available. There are considerable practical difficulties with the procedure, but today I have tried to make available a fund to help those voluntary groups that want to participate in the vaccination programme.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s proportionate and measured approach to this very contentious issue, and it will be respected by farmers in the west country, many of whom have suffered tragic losses from their herd. I welcome also the long-term commitment to developing a vaccine, but does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current vaccine is that it will only inoculate healthy badgers against future infection and cannot cure badgers that already have the disease?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable, has hit on the problem that the vaccine is effective only in badgers that are clear of the disease. That is one reason why vaccination takes so much longer than the method of controlled reduction by controlled shooting, but I reiterate that the Government have committed £20 million to the ongoing quest to find an oral vaccine for badgers. It has been effective in treating other diseases such as rabies, and if only we could find one, we would all, I am sure, be delighted.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Act 2011

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Public Bodies Act 2011

Charities Act 2011.

Environment Council (19 December 2011)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 19 December.

At this Council, the presidency will seek the adoption of Council conclusions on the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020: towards implementation; and on the road map to a resource efficient Europe.

Ministers will exchange views on the outcome of the 17th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the 7th session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in Durban, 28 November to 9 December 2011.

Ministers will also hear progress reports on: a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals (recast); a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels; and a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances.

The following topics will be covered under “any other business”, either via a report or presentation from the Commission, presidency, or a member state:

Convention on migratory species;

Preparing a global legally binding instrument on mercury;

Preparatory meetings for Rio+20;

“Planning for biodiversity”;

EU eastern partnership countries’ co-operation in climate policy;

Restriction or prohibition of genetically modified organisms;

Protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians;

Priority substances in water policy;

Programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE);

Monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions relevant to climate change at a national and European Union-level;

Fuel quality directive;

Implementation of regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases;

EU steps to reduce plastic carrier bag usage;

Establishing a common European industrial risk sharing facility;

Solution for a green economy;

Emissions trading scheme/aviation;

Combating desertification;

Control of trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal;

REACH and the candidate list of substances of very high concern;

Annual growth survey;

Work programme of incoming presidency.

Water White Paper

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I am today laying before Parliament “Water for Life”, our water White Paper. This sets out the Government’s vision for securing sustainable and resilient water supplies through to 2050. It builds on the success of the sector since water privatisation, while recognising that population growth and climate change will place extra demands on a system designed to meet the needs of today, not tomorrow.

The White Paper includes new scenarios of water availability in the 2050s. We need to start planning now to build flexibility and resilience into our water and sewerage infrastructure. Our approach must include better management of demand, but we will also need substantial new investment in infrastructure so we can capture more water and start to use the supplies we have more efficiently. We need to connect up our water system more effectively so that we can move supplies to areas where they are scarcer. We also need to ensure our drainage system can continue to operate effectively as infrastructure ages and pressure on capacity grows as the population increases.

The White Paper sets out how we will take forward our commitment in the natural environment White Paper to long-term reform of the water abstraction regime. Reform is vital given the challenges of climate change and population growth and the lack of flexibility in the existing regime to deal with them. This will be a complex task, and we will work closely with abstractors and other stakeholders to deliver it. We plan to consult on proposals in 2013, and aim to introduce legislation subsequently, implementing the new regime fully by the mid to late 2020s.

As well as looking to the future, we want to tackle the problems of pollution and over-abstraction affecting our rivers and wetlands currently. We can succeed only by drawing in the enthusiasm and knowledge of those with a clear stake in their local environment. We set out how Government and regulators are already starting to make this happen through new catchment pilots as well as a concerted effort to align advice, incentives and regulatory tools to address diffuse pollution and improve the environment. The White Paper explains how we will extrapolate from around 70 catchment scale pilot projects, and provide intensive support to 25 of them, as a precursor to rolling out this approach across the country.

We know that affordability of water bills is a growing problem for householders, and we want to enable businesses to keep their costs down. We set out our new framework to enable water companies to target more help on those household customers who need it most by introducing company social tariffs.

If bills are to be kept affordable over the longer term, and customers are to receive better service from their water companies, the regulatory framework governing the industry must change. The White Paper sets out how we are helping business customers and public bodies to reduce unnecessary costs by a package of deregulatory reforms to introduce more competition into the water industry. The reforms we propose will provide non-household customers with more choice and open up the market to new entrants, removing the anti-competitive barriers in the existing regime. Our proposals will increase the size of the market to include all non-household customers; remove a restrictive access price mechanism that makes it difficult for new entrants to compete on price and which unduly protects incumbents and replace it with a more transparent wholesale access price regime; increase opportunities for new entrants by extending the regime to cover sewerage services; and introduce changes to the existing regime for upstream competition to encourage new entrants and stimulate the market. We will work with the Scottish Government to enable a cross-border market in water and sewerage services.

As a result, we expect business and public sector customers to receive a range of benefits from more customer-focused suppliers with an incentive to improve the services they offer, such as aggregated purchasing, discounts for direct debits or improved information on how to improve water efficiency and cut costs.

However, we do not propose to introduce more fundamental structural reform of the water industry, for example through mandating legal separation of the retail arm of water companies. Given the challenges we are facing to build resilience in the sector, which will require ongoing investment in infrastructure, I am not proposing to make changes which could reduce the attractiveness of the water sector as a low-risk, stable home for investment.

If we are to deliver our vision for the future of a sustainable and resilient water system we must change the way we all value water. We need to start using water more efficiently, and recognising it as the precious and limited resource it is. We need to build awareness of the connection between water in the home and the condition of local rivers to encourage behaviour change. The White Paper sets out our approach to encouraging more efficient use of water, including through the linkage to the green deal.

The White Paper is available on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/legislation/whitepaper/

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for Agriculture and Food, represented the UK on agriculture matters at the Agricultural and Fisheries Council on Monday 14 November. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for natural environment and fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the United Kingdom on the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM were also in attendance.

The first item for discussion was the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy. The Commission emphasised the twin objectives of ensuring sustainable management of fisheries resources while maintaining a “level playing field” across member states and third countries in order to ensure a viable EU fishing fleet. There was general support for common principles such as the need to fish sustainably, the desire for EU vessels to only use what is surplus to local requirements, ensuring coherence of the CFP with EU development policy and the need for transparency from third countries about fishing activities in their waters.

On specific issues, a number of member states expressed concern about the effect on economic viability of increasing the vessel owners’ contributions towards paying the costs of access rights; while others, including the UK, could support an increase in owners’ contributions, or owners covering the full costs.

In order to ensure a “level playing field” a number of member states called for third-country producers to be liable to the same social and environmental obligations as EU producers. The UK, along with France, Germany, Belgium and Ireland, expressed support for trade measures being taken against those countries who were not fishing sustainably.

The Danish presidency will take this forward as part of the CFP reform package in 2012.

The main agricultural item on the agenda was further discussion of the Commission’s proposals for reform of direct payments under pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy. Member states were asked for views on the proposed structure of pillar 1, and on the Commission’s plans for convergence of payment rates within and between member states. There appeared to be a developing consensus that the overall structure of the Commission’s proposals was too complex and that greater national flexibility was required for member states to respond to specific needs within their own territory.

On the detail of the proposal, a number of items were raised by member states. On greening of direct payments, even those member states who did generally accept the principle questioned the bureaucratic burden it would place on farmers and national administrations. On support for young or small farmers, many member states called for the provisions to be voluntary for member states.

When considering the move to a single payment rate within individual member states (or regions), the UK and France were in a group of member states who accepted the end goal, but thought the Commission’s proposals moved too quickly, particularly in the first year. However, some member states remain opposed. On the issue of the convergence of payment rates between member states, Ministers were split between those who will lose and those who will gain.

There were five any other business items. The first was information from the Commission on implementation of the conventional cage ban as set down in the laying hens directive. The Commission announced that it would be writing to member states to seek confirmation of compliance with the ban, which comes into force on 1 January 2012, or to ascertain how compliance will be reached. This letter will be the first step towards infraction proceedings against non-compliant member states. The Commission noted progress at a meeting of officials on 28 October considering a workable, non-legally binding, agreement to tackle the issue of large-scale non-compliance with the conventional cage ban across the EU. For the UK, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State intervened to state that such an agreement which would need to include, as a minimum, a list of compliant and non-compliant producers from member states, action plans for compliance spanning no longer than six months (which would also prevent member states from placing new hens into conventional cages), clear marks to identify non-compliant eggs, and restriction of trade for these egg and egg products to the country of production. The majority of member states that have complied with the rules were against any form of compromise agreement. In conclusion, the Commission reiterated its commitment to start infringement proceedings from 1 January 2012 but considered progress on an informal agreement as the best and quickest way to ensure full compliance from member states.

The next AOB item was a report from France on the food for deprived persons scheme. France stated that it had agreed a joint declaration with Germany agreeing continuation of the food for deprived persons scheme until the end of 2013. The declaration also stated that neither country believed that the conditions were in place for a similar scheme to be supported from the EU budget beyond 2013. The presidency concluded that there was now a qualified majority in favour of the proposal, and would aim for formal legal agreement at the December Agriculture Council.

Hungary presented the next AOB item, a paper, supported by France, Lithuania, Austria and Romania, arguing for an extension to the sugar quota system beyond 2015. Six other member states supported this call, arguing that it would provide stability of production and to allow expansion to meet demand. The UK led the counter-argument against a continuation of quotas, supported by Slovenia, Ireland and Latvia.

The presidency presented a paper on the Ryn “Forestry for climate and biodiversity” conference, and noted forthcoming international negotiations on a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe.

The final AOB item was another presidency paper reporting on the 30th conference of the Directors of paying agencies of the EU; the key conclusion of the conference had been the need for further progress on simplification.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What recent steps she has taken on reform of the common agricultural policy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Having just heard the writ being moved, I am sure it would be the right thing to do to express our condolences to Alan Keen’s wife, Ann, whom we all remember, on behalf of the whole House.

The Government have commenced negotiations on the CAP reform proposals, which the Commission published on 12 October and which, for the first time, require the co-decision of the European Parliament. I recently met Agriculture Commissioner Ciolos, together with the Agriculture Ministers for the devolved Administrations, to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are taken into account.

[Mr Bone]

Our net contribution to the European Union in the last five years of the Labour Government was £19 billion, and in the next five years of this coalition Government it will be £41 billion—an increase of 116%, because Tony Blair gave away Mrs Thatcher’s EU rebate. At the time, he said that our net contribution would not increase because the European Union had promised massive reform of the CAP. Who was lying, Tony Blair or the European Union?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is precisely why the UK Government have expressed their disappointment that the proposed CAP reforms lack ambition. Although the commissioner correctly identifies food security and climate change as the two key challenges that agriculture faces, I regret that the proposals do not really address the great challenge. Therefore, we will seek to improve them to get the best possible outcome for taxpayers, consumers and farmers alike.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will recall that that great European, Socrates, said that a politician who does not know the price of a bushel of wheat should not be in the job. If we got rid of the CAP, we would have to have a BAP—a British agricultural policy. Knowing our farming community—a landowning community—and its control of top Tories, I suggest that the BAP would be far more expensive than the CAP.

[Mrs Spelman]

I think we are speculating wildly about the future of Europe. My job is to concentrate on getting an improvement in the reforms. It is important to appreciate that the underlying objective of the CAP is to provide good-quality food at a reasonable price. My Department is committed in its business plan priorities to producing more food sustainably, precisely to achieve that objective.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that a primary objective must be a move from market-distorting production supports to supporting public goods, such as the environment and amenity. How much progress does she believe the CAP reforms are making in that direction? How do we ensure that that general direction of progress can be accelerated?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a helpful question, as it enables me to share with the House the fact that we are on a journey with these proposals. We welcome the fact that the Commission wants to “green” the CAP. Taxpayers have every right to expect other public goods for the subsidy they provide. We feel that the “greening” proposals also lack ambition, and we want proper recognition of the fact that UK farmers go a lot further than those in a lot of other member states in providing stewardship schemes that make a real difference and provide environmental benefits that address problems such as the demise of species.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There is much talk of returning powers from Brussels to this Parliament and the British Government. Would the CAP not be a good policy to bring back to Britain? Could we not subsidise British farmers, even at the current levels, and save billions of pounds from our budget every year?

[Mrs Spelman]

The nature of the supplementary questions is ranging much wider than the remit of my Department. As I have said, my job at each one of these Council meetings is to get the best possible deal for consumers, taxpayers and farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is my duty.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the consultation on dangerous dogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the introduction of mandatory reporting of carbon emissions by businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I have had recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on the issue and I know that there is a lot of interest in it. There is an appetite in Government for it but, as the House will be aware, any policy has to undergo an impact assessment, which we are in the process of clearing.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There are only four months until the Government are obliged either to introduce carbon reporting or to explain why they have not. When the Members who previously sat on the Opposition Front Bench supported the proposal, they said that it would help economic growth. Why, in the present economic crisis, is it not being pursued more vigorously?

[Mrs Spelman]

Two things have emerged. We had more than 2,000 replies to the consultation, which showed that carbon is reported in very different ways. One challenge is to find a way in which it can be reported meaningfully so that investors know which company to invest in, because they understand the information they receive. Secondly, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on the content of company accounts—narrative reporting, as it is known. We need to synchronise the issue because carbon reporting would be in a set of company accounts. I perfectly understand the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008 in that regard.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Climate change is the biggest market failure the world has seen and the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to introduce carbon reporting to correct the failure is imminent. That decision is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to create green growth and drive the development of low-carbon products and services across UK plc. With youth unemployment at record levels and mandatory reporting supported by Britain’s largest employers, how many jobs does she estimate would be created in the UK’s green economy if it was introduced?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady shares entirely with me an appreciation of how important it is that we make progress in that area. She will have seen how the coalition Government have committed to challenging targets in order to change our economy to a low-carbon basis. In the spirit of being on the same page on this matter, I can say that I am keen to do what I can to transition the economy in that regard. On this specific question, however, I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), we need to synchronise carbon reporting in a way that investors can understand. At the moment, there are different requirements on companies to report in different ways. We need a meaningful measure of carbon reporting in the spirit of achieving that low-carbon economy.

[Mary Creagh]

The Secretary of State signally failed to answer my question. There is no estimate in the impact assessment of the number of jobs that the new products and services would create. When the global recession struck in 2008, Labour’s future jobs fund created green jobs for young people in wildlife trusts, country parks and green charities across the country, but they are now on the dole. Carbon reporting will help us to move to the low-carbon economy. When did she last sit down with the Chancellor, one to one, to discuss the autumn statement that he will make on Tuesday and how DEFRA will play its part in creating the conditions for green jobs and growth to tackle the crisis?

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not think it is my job to share in advance with the hon. Lady the content of the autumn Budget statement. As I just said, I share with her the clear vision about opportunities to create jobs if our economy is transitioned into a low-carbon economy. If her party felt so passionately about that, why did it not proceed with what she now claims we should be doing during its 13 years in office?

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on reform of the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

7. What estimate she has made of the number of green jobs that will be created by implementation of the waste review.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Britain’s waste and recycling sector is valued at more than £12 billion, employs 120,000 to 150,000 people and is forecast to grow by between 3% and 5% per annum over the next seven years. The waste review set us on the path to a zero-waste economy. It will support the sector’s transition from focusing on disposal to landfill to the greater reuse, recycling and recovery of waste material.

[Nick Smith]

If the Secretary of State adopted a 70% recycling target, as the Welsh Assembly has, an extra 50,000 private sector jobs could be created over the next four or five years. Why does England have a lower recycling target than Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? It has the weakest targets in the UK.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have explained before, targets in specific areas can play a role in achieving a zero-waste economy, but they can produce perverse consequences. I recently attended the Waste and Resources Action Programme conference, where it was clear that the waste industry feels that one of the things that has driven innovation and change is the landfill tax. There is no question but that the new capacity through new technology to recycle more materials is an engine of growth in the economy.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I should like to press the Secretary of State a little further on recycling, particularly on the recycling of packaging, because the Government have been too timid in their packaging recycling targets so far. We have been promised a consultation this year on more ambitious targets from 2013 onwards. We are nearly in December, so will she tell us when that will happen?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that the hon. Lady would agree that the Courtauld commitment has helped, through voluntary agreements with different sectors of the economy, significantly to increase recycling targets. We have recently concluded new responsibility deals on packaging with the hospitality and catering sector. As part of that ongoing progress, I remain committed to the Courtauld process further extending into the community, and of course we will consult shortly on new opportunities as they arise.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The incoherence of those two answers serves as testament to the fact that the waste review comes from a Department of missed opportunity. Put simply, green growth creates jobs. The economy is in dire straits. Growth has flatlined; confidence has tanked; and 1 million young people stand unemployed. My question is simple: what will the Secretary of State do about it?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the fact that the waste industry is a bright star in the economy, with growth rates of 3% to 5% per annum. One of the reasons the industry is so successful is the constant stream of entrepreneurship and innovation, as we increasingly see waste as resource. There is continuous progress in this area, and I think that he would agree that the landfill tax has been an important regulatory driver in helping to encourage that innovation.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

8. What discussions she has had with (a) her EU counterparts and (b) ministerial colleagues on the implementation of the welfare of laying hens directive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on (a) food prices and (b) support for British food manufacturing.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I have, in the normal course of business, discussed food prices and support for food manufacturing as part of the Government’s growth review, and we continue to work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Trade & Investment to help boost growth, exports and efficiency in the whole food chain.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Food manufacturing is very important to the north-east, especially to my constituency; firms such as Nestlé, Warburtons and Greggs play a really significant part in the local economy. What specific plans does her Department have, working alongside BIS, to support that vital sector, including through research and development and capital allowances, and by increasing exports, thereby helping to support tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east?

[Mrs Spelman]

All the firms that the hon. Lady mentions are household names, and indeed the food industry contributes more than £80 billion to the UK economy. As I have said, I have had representatives from the Food and Drink Federation and from agri-food businesses in the Department to ask them what we can do to help them remove barriers to growth in trade. I have very good news to report: for the seventh year in a row, UK exports of food and drink have risen.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Uplands are a vital source of food production in this country, and the Secretary of State will know that they are supported through the uplands entry level scheme. Does she share my concern that money from the scheme is often snaffled by absentee landlords, rather than going to the hard-working tenant farmers who produce the food?

[Mrs Spelman]

When we announced our £26 million uplands package, one of the things we said we would do is give priority to uplands farmers who want to take up entry level schemes. We specifically spoke about the need for landlords to back their tenant farmers who want to take advantage of the scheme.

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

Public procurement is a key way of supporting British food production and high food standards, yet the Department for Work and Pensions sources only 11% of its food from UK producers, DEFRA is failing on its own policy for sourcing sustainable fish and the new ethical standards for food served in public institutions were ridiculed in a report this week for being even weaker than those at McDonald’s. Will the Secretary of State please stop clowning around with food standards and UK food production jobs and at least try to keep up with Ronald McDonald?

[Mrs Spelman]

There is no question but that the Government, through procurement choices, can make a big difference to the food and drink industry, which is one of the reasons we set additional requirements on all Departments to buy to higher standards, including sustainable fish, when we announced the guidelines for Government buying standards in September. We do not yet have figures for the most recent month, and no doubt it will take time to adapt to the changes, but the point is that there is a commitment right across central Government to buy to the highest standards that we expect from British food producers.

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

10. What progress she has made in reducing the administrative burden of inspection and regulation on farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that context, I will attend important climate change negotiations in Durban next week. The items on the agenda include sustainable agriculture, as well as the protection of international forestry. In addition, I will have a series of bilateral discussions as part of the preparations for Rio plus 20, on which I will lead, and, of course, update the House on my return.

[Mr Hollobone]

Farmers in the Kettering constituency continue to complain about the difficulties that they encounter in obtaining their single farm payment, especially where there have been changes to farm boundaries. I know that much has been done to sort out the Rural Payments Agency, but what more can be done to sort out that wretched organisation?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure the whole House is aware, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) has been working hard to improve the performance of the Rural Payments Agency, and there is indeed a strategic improvement plan to help achieve that. The target was met in June for payments, and we are making good progress towards achieving the target that is required to be met by the end of this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T6. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Latin American colleagues to prepare for the forthcoming international conferences in Durban and Rio?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have had two in particular. I met Brazil’s Environment Minister, Izabella Teixeira, during negotiations in Nagoya, and as Brazil is the host nation I went down there to help the Brazilians with preparations for Rio plus 20 next year, and most recently, as the House will be well aware, we had a visit from the Colombian President and the Environment Minister, Frank Pearl, whom I met at the Department with a proposal for sustainable development goals, to which we have given our support in principle.

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

T3. When the Government’s long overdue water White Paper finally comes out, will the Secretary of State confirm that small businesses, not fat cat water utilities, will be at the centre of deregulation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This week has seen the launch of the ecosystems market taskforce. What are the practical implications of that?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is one of the commitments that we gave in the natural environment White Paper. We have asked Ian Cheshire, the chairman of Kingfisher Group, to chair the ecosystems taskforce, together with a number of business leaders and scientists. This is an opportunity to help business in this country to take the chance, with the new green technologies and green growth, to grow our economy into a low-carbon economy, and beyond that, towards all the opportunities that realising the true value of natural capital can provide.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give an update on the progress being made by her Government to tackle international speculation in food commodities? That is a major factor in driving up food prices, which is affecting our constituents and others internationally, and it needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency.

[Mrs Spelman]

The evidence regarding the role of speculation in the rise of food prices is perhaps not as clear as the hon. Gentleman sets out. The main reason for volatility in prices is that supply and demand are tight, and the best way to address that is to improve the supply of food to the market. Transparency is the key to helping to reduce volatility. We, as a Government, support greater transparency so that people around the world know who is producing what, where, and how much they have in stock. That will help to buffer prices.

Natural Capital Committee

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The natural environment White Paper, published on 7 June 2011, set out the Government’s intention to establish an independent Natural Capital Committee. It will commence its work in early 2012. As part of this, I will be making appointments to this new committee, and these will be advertised shortly.

The natural environment White Paper sets out our commitment to putting natural capital at the centre of economic thinking, and at the heart of the green economy. The Natural Capital Committee will enable us to achieve this goal by advising the Government on the state of natural capital in England. The Committee will report to the Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Committee will:



Provide advice on when, where and how natural assets are being used unsustainably.



Advise the Government on how they could prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital, so that public and private activity is focused where it will have greatest impact on improving wellbeing in our society.



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

Further information on the natural environment White Paper can be found on the DEFRA website.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 14 November, in Brussels. I shall represent the UK on agriculture matters, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsible for environment and fisheries my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be representing the United Kingdom on the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neill MLA and Alun Davies AM will also attend.

The Council meeting will open in its fisheries formation with a discussion of the only substantive fisheries agenda item on external aspects of the proposals for common fisheries policy (CFP) reform. The debate will focus on engagement with regional fisheries management organisations and the EU’s external fisheries agreements.

On agricultural business, there is one item on the main agenda: discussion of the common agricultural policy reform proposal on direct payments. The presidency has posed questions about the overall structure of the direct payments proposals and explicitly on the proposed reallocations between member states.

There are four items under any other business. The first is an update from the Commission on compliance with the welfare of laying hens directive. It is not clear how much discussion is expected on this item. The second and third AoB items will see the presidency reports back on two recent forestry meetings (the forestry for climate and biodiversity conference and EU forestry and nature DGs meeting) and on the regular meeting of paying agency heads. And finally there is a request from the Hungarian presidency to discuss the prolongation of sugar regime to 2020.

Finally, there is a ministerial lunch scheduled during which heads of member state delegations will discuss the greening aspects of the CAP reform proposals.

Witten Ministerial Statement (Correction)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

On 7 November I made a written ministerial statement summarising discussions at the October Agriculture and Fisheries Council—Official Report, columns 3-5WS. In the paragraph relating to the AoB item on implementation of the laying hens directive I referred to implementation beginning in 2013. This paragraph should have read:

Under any other business Council heard an update from Commissioner Dalli on implementation of the laying hens directive, which comes into force on 1 January 2012. The Commission was clear that there would be no postponement of the ban on battery cages even though at least 11 member states were unlikely to have complied with the directive by the start of next year. The Commission said it would exercise powers, beginning targeted inspection visits at the start of 2012, and would begin legal proceedings against non-compliant member states. While there was an argument that non-compliant eggs should be destroyed, this would not make political or economic sense. Instead, the use of non-compliant eggs would be limited to production of egg products within the member state of origin. There was no opportunity for member states to intervene.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

On Thursday 20 October I represented the UK on agricultural issues at the first day of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food. On Friday 21 October my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for natural environment and fisheries, the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) represented the United Kingdom on the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM were also in attendance.

The main item on Thursday was a Commission presentation of the seven proposals which make up the package for reform of the common agricultural policy from 2014. Commissioner Ciolos began by stating that sustainable competitiveness, linked to food security, was at the heart of the proposals before going on to say that greater convergence of payment rates within and between member states was necessary. He stated that direct payments should be made up of basic income support (70%), with the remaining 30% available only if farmers met certain environmental or “greening” conditions. Commissioner Ciolos went on to underline his belief that the first pillar of the CAP should apply in a uniform manner across all member states, with the second pillar offering member states flexibility to respond to national priority needs.

Two full table rounds followed giving member states a first opportunity to offer views on the package. Views varied widely with no unconditional support for the package but the UK made it clear that the proposals represented a missed opportunity, doing nothing to move EU farmers towards a situation in which they could be competitive without direct payments. As tabled, the proposals risked rewarding farmers for normal good practice or, worse, preventing them from making the right decisions for sustainability.

On the detail of the proposals, some themes emerged during the two discussions. On convergence of direct payments, a number of member states had serious misgivings about redistribution of funding between member states with some expressing the view that proposals went too far while others believed it did not go far enough, while the UK, with the support of a number of other member states, repeated opposition to the capping of direct payments.

Proposals for the “greening” of pillar 1 received some support in principle, but the majority of member states questioned the rigid, one-size-fits-all system proposed which appeared to deliver more red tape than actual environmental benefit. This debate led to a discussion of the broader issue of simplification. Member states were of the view that the Commission had promised simplification, but that the package as a whole, with a multi-layered direct payment scheme consisting of various mandatory elements, would increase the burden for both farmers and national administrations.

Few member states had fundamental problems with the proposals on rural development, though all were clearly interested in the allocation criteria for pillar 2 payments for which the UK called for a faster move to objective allocation criteria.

In conclusion to the debate, Commissioner Ciolos stated that, in his view, the proposals had received broad support as the basis for future discussion but that he realised the allocation of payments would be the most contentious issue and that further work was needed. However, he rejected arguments that the package did not deliver simplification for producers and would be writing to Ministers outlining how his package delivered in this area.

Also on the agenda was a discussion of the food for deprived persons scheme. The presidency and Commission together urged the blocking minority of six member states (Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Czech Republic) to reconsider their positions and agree to the revised proposal. A number of member states, led by France, intervened to express their frustration that this dossier was being blocked. The presidency then asked members of the blocking minority to confirm that they still opposed the revised proposals. All did, and the UK commented that the revised legal base only confirmed that this was a social scheme for action at a national rather than EU level.

The final agriculture item for discussion on the substantive agenda related to the achieving of an EU common position on four draft resolutions of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV). The UK remained silent as it is not a member of the OIV and the presidency noted that there remained a blocking majority against adoption of the resolutions.

Under any other business Council heard an update from Commissioner Dalli on implementation of the laying hens directive, which comes into force on 1 January 2013. The Commission was clear that there would be no postponement of the ban on battery cages even though at least 11 member states were unlikely to have complied with the directive by the start of next year. The Commission said it would exercise powers, beginning targeted inspection visits at the start of 2013, and would begin legal proceedings against non-compliant member states. While there was an argument that non-compliant eggs should be destroyed, this would not make political or economic sense. Instead, the use of non-compliant eggs would be limited to production of egg products within the member state of origin. There was no opportunity for member states to intervene.

The second day of Council saw consideration of two fisheries agenda items. The first related to 2012 fishing opportunities in the Baltic sea. The Commission stressed the need for a cautious approach, particularly for stocks where there was no scientific advice; and the need to respect existing scientific advice and management plans where relevant. The aim should be to reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels for all stocks. Member states challenged the Commission’s generic approach of proposing cuts of 25% or 15% for stocks for which there was insufficient advice (“data poor”) and pushed back against the Commission’s ambition to reach MSY sooner than the internationally agreed date of 2015, where possible. The Commission agreed to treat data-poor stocks on a case-by-case basis; an important shift for forthcoming fishing opportunities negotiations of interest to the UK and other fishing member states.

After extensive bilateral discussions and a compromise proposal from the presidency, the Commission was pressed in a final negotiating session to offer reduced decreases across most stocks.

The final fisheries item related to the EU-Norway fisheries agreement for 2012. Ministers had an exchange of views to orientate the Commission’s approach to this forthcoming set of negotiations governing stocks jointly managed by the EU and Norway, and the exchange of fishing opportunities. The UK is the member state with the largest fishing interest in the agreement.

The Commission noted the importance of reaching a balanced agreement on behalf of the EU as a whole and that member states had to be realistic in what they felt should be offered to Norway to secure access to the Arctic cod allocation offered. On this issue the UK said Norway should be pressed to use external waters stocks, while other member states pressed for maximum Arctic cod uptake and stressed the importance of an EU-Faroes agreement. The UK also stressed the importance of ensuring Iceland and the Faroes behaved responsibly and reached a reasonable agreement on mackerel as well as the extension of the “catch quota” scheme which has been shown to reduce discards.

Environment Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 10 October. Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also joined the delegation.

Following lengthy debate, the Council adopted conclusions on preparations for the 17th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the seventh session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in Durban. The text signals the EU’s continued openness to a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol as part of a transition to a wider legally binding framework, and sets out the EU’s negotiating position on the range of other issues in the negotiations.

Ministers also adopted conclusions setting out the EU’s high-level position ahead of the Rio plus 20 conference next year. These send a clear political signal that the EU wants the conference to be a success. I emphasised the need for Ministers to focus on the EU’s strategic objectives for Rio plus 20 and the need for the conference to produce concrete outcomes in order to move us towards a genuine “green economy”.

Recently I attended the Delhi ministerial meeting on Rio plus 20. There was broad consensus that delegations have little appetite for simply agreeing a long-winded communiqué at Rio—they want action and implementation. The main outcomes of the Delhi meeting were: widespread agreement on the need for specific measures to make the transition to a greener global economy; recognition of the strong links between climate change, biodiversity and poverty reduction, and their importance for growth; agreement on the need to strengthen international environmental governance; and considerable interest in the Colombian proposal for sustainable development goals. Food security and sustainable agriculture, energy security and energy access, and resource efficiency were all identified as key themes for the Rio plus 20 summit.

The Environment Council also adopted conclusions on the review of the sixth environment action programme (EAP) and looking forward to the seventh. In this context, the Commission presented its road map towards a resource-efficient Europe, making it clear that they saw this as a comprehensive issue, covering much of the Commission’s work on environment, climate and energy. Both issues were discussed by Ministers over lunch, with several Ministers emphasising the need to focus on implementation of existing legislation rather than new initiatives in developing a future framework.

The Council adopted conclusions and a Council decision setting out the position of the EU and its member states ahead of the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to the Basel convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal which will, among other things, discuss the mechanism for entry into force of the “ban amendment”.

The Aviation Emissions Trading Scheme was discussed under other business: the Commission encouraged member states to defend vigorously the legislation and counter some of the misunderstanding evident among others. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change agreed with their approach and reiterated the UK’s full support for the directive.