Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the treatment of these breeding bitches is unbelievably cruel. It is the lucky ones who get themselves to places such as Battersea.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I congratulate, too, Marc the Vet who comes from my home city of Brighton and Hove and has done so much on this agenda. Local authorities do very good work, but they are under enormous pressure in respect of their budgets. Does that not make it even more important to ensure that we take national action on the issue? The Government’s own advice is that people should not buy a pup without seeing the mother. If that is their advice, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that they should now act on it?

[Robert Flello]

In a word, yes.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his persistent campaigning for stronger regulation of the sale of puppies and kittens. As many hon. Members have said, puppy farming is a horrendous business. Dogs are kept for their whole lives in often small, dark and filthy kennels, and they are used essentially as breeding machines. They have no chance to express their normal behaviours, and many suffer from untreated illnesses. Such farms really are factory farms for dogs. We need to grasp the opportunity to put an end to the barbaric practice of puppy and kitten farming once and for all.

We know that there are some key measures that we could decide to take that would make significant steps towards achieving that. That is why I want to add my voice to the many others asking the Government to take what steps they can today. I add my strong support for the measures set out in the motion, and I want to pay my own tribute to someone a number of hon. Members have mentioned, who has been a real driving force behind the campaign: the Pup Aid founder and Brighton-based vet Marc Abraham. His contribution to ending puppy farming and to animal welfare more generally is hugely impressive, and he has helped to assemble a formidable coalition, about which we have already heard a lot, including Blue Cross, the Dog Rescue Federation, the Dog Advisory Council, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and the RSPCA. Added to that, as we know, the latest figure for the number of people who have signed the petition is about 125,000, so the strength of feeling across the country that we should be doing more to act is clear.

As a rescue dog owner myself—I got that dog from a wonderful RSPCA centre in Brighton—I want to add my voice to those of the many Brighton residents who have taken the time to write to share their concerns about puppy farming, and often to share their photographs, too.

I want to mention a vet whom I have been speaking to. It concerned me that she said that in her experience, the problem is actually becoming significantly worse. In her view, it will not change without some kind of intervention or regulation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about puppy farming. Banning puppy sales is one way of tackling the problem, but is that not just the tip of the iceberg? We need to consider the issue of supply, at the core of which is transportation from other jurisdictions. Should we not look at proper enforcement against the cruel transportation of puppies?

[Caroline Lucas]

I certainly agree that we need to do that. My slight concern is that although some hon. Members are asking us to examine other issues, which we certainly should, that should not be at the expense of doing what we can here today. I completely take on board, for example, what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said about animals coming from other jurisdictions or via the internet, which may be a harder nut to crack right now. However, that should not mean that we do not act now to take action on pet shops, garden centres and so on. I agree that that will not be a panacea or a silver bullet, but we can do it relatively straightforwardly. We should do it, because we can do it and it will make a difference.

I was speaking about the vet who had raised with me her concerns about pedigree puppy farming in particular, which can result in particularly grim conditions. Genetic problems range from serious breathing difficulties to chronic, lifelong skin allergies to crippling joint problems. The real concern is that some of those problems, such as obstructive airway syndrome, are seen as normal by those who are willing to put looks and fashion before animal welfare. A price tag of more than £1,000 is not uncommon for breeds such as pugs and bulldogs, and the inevitable outcome is more breeding to meet more demand.

That vet explained to me that in some breeds of bulldogs, the majority of bitches cannot give birth naturally and need a caesarean to deliver puppies. She explained that she had come across breeders who were so willing to put their dogs under repeat surgeries, so that they could keep breeding them for as long as it was profitable, that they literally bred the dogs to death.

Of course, some of the responsibility should stop with the consumers who are willing to pay to purchase dogs from puppy farms and bad breeders. That is why I welcome the fact that the motion mentions the importance of raising awareness. However, I believe that many people are simply not aware of the issue. They do not know that if they buy a puppy from a pet shop, it could have come from the type of grim background that we have described, so raising awareness is massively important.

The role of local authorities is also massively important, and I underline again the importance of ensuring that they are properly resourced to carry out the welfare checks that they have the right to do. However, that does not take away from the fact that the Government need to act as well. The vet that I have been referring to says that she does not believe the problem is

“likely to go away anytime soon without some kind of intervention or regulation.”

I believe that there is a case for overwhelming action today. The fact that we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the strength of feeling throughout the House and the country and swiftly take the measures that are within their power.

Bovine TB

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the House that we have a Select Committee report and two Back-Bench debates this afternoon? The convention for statements is that Members ask one question of the Secretary of State—not make statements, but ask one question. We will get everybody in if that convention is followed by Members, so I hope from now on we can move at a slightly faster pace.

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Paterson]

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

Badger Cull

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin]

I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that I have been generous in giving way to her, because she had quite a long time to have her say. I regret bitterly that in her speech she did not condemn the activities of people protesting that might have meant that the tests took longer. She should have done that, because whatever the report concludes about the trials, it is indisputable that what applies to one species should apply to the others. If we cull cattle, we should cull badgers. If we vaccinate badgers, we should vaccinate cattle. It is inconsistent treatment of one species or the other that damages disease control. That is proven by the spread of the disease and the inconsistent record of the previous Government.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Wiggin]

Yes, I will give way, although I must not give way much more.

[Caroline Lucas]

The words that the hon. Gentleman has just spoken are scientifically so wrong. All the evidence that we have seen demonstrates precisely that the strategy taken should depend on what species we are talking about and on the ecology. Just because culling makes sense in one context with one species at one time, it makes no sense to say that that means it is okay to do it in a different environment. The circumstances matter, not the general principle.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her work in securing it. Like others, I appreciate her courage in leading it this afternoon.

Let me start by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who is no longer in his place. The debate is not about people who love badgers versus people who love cattle. It is not about those who find a cull distasteful, to use the words of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), versus those who do not. It is about how we can most effectively address the scourge of bovine TB.

The science points us towards the fact that culling badgers in England is not an effective policy. I wish that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) were still in his place, because I would say to him that it is him, not me, who has his science wrong. I might also be tempted to point out to him that although I know I am guilty of many sins, I am not aware that I have been guilty of spreading bovine TB myself. That was among the many things he accused me of earlier this afternoon.

Let me be serious. It is important that we address the clichés. Even though I represent an urban constituency, I have spent a lot of time with farmers. I was a member of a European Parliament special committee on foot and mouth disease and I visited many farms and sat with many farmers in their kitchens. I am under no illusion about the enormous distress they experience at the thought of the destruction of their animals. I have cried as they have cried facing the loss both of their livelihoods and of animals that they love. This is not a competition about who loves animals most; it is a debate about the evidence for what works. There is no monopoly on either side of the House on caring for animals. What there is, I think, is a determination among some of us to try to look at the evidence with a bit more rigour.

I welcome this debate, because it is important that MPs are properly involved in any future decisions about the control of bovine TB, and that those decisions are subject to a vote in this House. As other hon. Members have indicated, the pilot badger cull can only be judged a spectacular failure, including against the Government’s own terms of reference.

The leaked IEP report makes it clear that the pilot failed two of the Government’s tests. It failed on humaneness, as more than 5% of badgers took longer than five minutes to die, and it failed on effectiveness, as fewer than 50% of badgers have been killed in either pilot area. Yes, those are only leaks, but we know that they echo the empirical evidence of so many people who have been monitoring the culls. We know, for example, that one of those culls took more than 11 weeks and that people involved in those culls stopped free shooting quite early on because it was not effective. We know as well from the people who were following those culls that many of the animals were not shot in a clean way.

It is not the case that, because this report has not been published, we cannot make statements about it. I wish, as others do, that the Minister had brought it forward earlier. As one of the co-sponsors of the debate, I can say that, when we went to the Backbench Business Committee, we fully expected the report to be out. The reason we wanted it out fairly swiftly was that we know that this Government have a habit of moving fast without consulting Parliament. They did that when they extended the culls in the first place—the extended period did not come back to Parliament for a decision—so it was right to ensure that the Government heard the views of the constituents whom we represent.

The leaked IEP report makes it clear not only that the pilots failed some of the tests that the Government set, but that costs have soared, particularly when policing costs are taken into account. Preliminary estimates put the pilot costs at an eye-watering £4,000 per badger killed. Shockingly, despite that, the Government have refused to rule out the extension of culling in up to 40 additional large areas in the west and south-west of England in the coming years.

Much has been said about the importance of evidence-based policy making. Let us remind ourselves about what some of these scientific experts have said about culling. Others have already quoted Lord John Krebs, who called the cull policy “mindless”. He was one of the architects of the landmark 10-year culling trials that ended in 2007. He said:

“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.”

Lord Robert May, a former Government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society, said:

“It is very clear to me that the Government's policy does not make sense.”

He added:

“I have no sympathy with the decision. They are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”

I want to highlight some of the myths associated with the culling strategy and to suggest some alternatives. Before I do that, let me state again that I absolutely accept that bovine TB is a serious problem that needs to be tackled. However, the evidence shows that badger culling makes the problem even worse for some farmers, and risks making it worse for all of them. Today’s debate is not about whether we want to protect cattle or badgers; it is about the most effective way to protect cattle, which, as the evidence shows, is not by killing badgers. That is not because badgers do not necessarily contribute to the cattle TB problem, but because badger culling tends to increase the proportion of badgers infected and to spread the disease to new areas. That is because of the perturbation effect, as fleeing badgers spread the disease further afield while the vacuum caused by culling attracts new badgers into newly vacated territory.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a high-risk area in Sussex, which spreads broadly from her constituency to mine. It is a fairly ring-fenced area. We understand the nature of the problem there, and it is causing real difficulties. Does she recognise that that is an ideal example of where vaccination could be made to work? As the disease is geographically confined, we could see the effects of perturbation and whether, with vaccination, there were different issues that could be managed more effectively.

[Caroline Lucas]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and completely agree. I know that in previous debates, he has raised, as I have, the work of the Sussex badger vaccination project, a volunteer-run service that offers landowners and farmers in east Sussex the chance to have badgers vaccinated at very low cost, thereby providing a humane and less controversial method of tackling the disease. I hope that as many farmers as possible in the area will take up that offer.

I want to talk about some of the myths about culling. One that even DEFRA is promoting—we have heard it several times already today from Government Members—is that results from places such as New Zealand support the strategy of badger culling in the UK. Let us be clear that there are no badgers in New Zealand. The wildlife host there is the brushtail possum, an invasive species introduced from Australia. Possum ecology is completely different from badger ecology. Although culling reduces TB in possums, rather than increasing it, that result cannot simply be transposed to a different species with a different ecology in a different country. Professor Charles Godfray of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences puts it clearly:

“Differences in the regulatory and social structure of farming, the countryside, and the ecology of the different reservoirs all mean that lessons from other countries have to be taken with great caution.”

The bottom line is that bovine TB is too important for us to be cherry-picking the evidence. As we reflect on the pilot culls, it is essential that we put science at the heart of future policy.

Similarly, evidence from the Republic of Ireland has been cited to support claims that culling badgers will help to control TB in England. As with New Zealand, the evidence shows that TB reductions cannot be attributed solely to culling. Crucially, Ireland has much lower badger densities than England, so the badgers respond differently to culling. In England, culling has consistently increased the proportion of badgers with TB. The evidence most applicable to the TB problem in England is information collected in England.

We have heard that during the pilot culls, when the Government’s policy on badger control was in place, the conditions deviated massively from the conditions of the randomised badger culling trial, so any reliance on the results of the RBCT in predicting the likely outcome of culling is completely invalid. Let us not forget that even in the best case scenario the RBCT only reduced the incidence of bovine TB by between 12% and 16%. In other words, even if we were to take Herculean measures and do absolutely everything in the right amount of time and as cleanly as possible, we would still not be tackling at least 84% of TB in cattle. That is what makes me feel that it is even more important to look at alternative strategies, and chief among them, as many other Members have said, is badger vaccination.

Badger vaccination makes sense for a number of reasons, but I want to mention just two. The first reason is that it works. It reduces the probability of infection by between 70% and 75%. Even allowing for the fact that not all badgers will be reached and vaccination needs to be repeated year on year to include new cubs, it is still more effective and more cost-effective than shooting, not least because vaccination allows the badgers’ population structure to remain in place, granting considerable benefits for disease limitation.

Vaccination does not remove infected badgers, but it makes it more difficult for those animals to pass infection to other badgers. Over time, the infected animals die off, and the proportion of infected badgers is expected to decline. That contrasts with culling, which increases the proportion of infected badgers and spreads infection in space.

The second reason is on grounds of cost. Vaccinating badgers is cheaper than culling them, for at least three reasons: First, the poor performance of free shooting suggests that both culling and vaccination would entail cage trapping, with vaccination slightly cheaper because there is no need to dispose of carcases. Secondly, vaccination is unlikely to require policing. As other members have said, DEFRA estimates the cost of vaccinating badgers to be £2,250 per sq km per year, while policing the first two pilot culls alone cost roughly £4,400 per sq km. Thirdly, as with the example of the Sussex badger vaccination project, many wildlife organisations can draw upon hundreds of volunteers to help with badger vaccination, markedly reducing the costs.

As I have said in all the other parliamentary debates on the subject, we also need to devote more resources and political capital to overcoming the challenges with cattle vaccination, as well as to addressing the role that modern husbandry practices can play in placing chronic stress on intensively farmed animals. Professor John Bourne, chair of the independent scientific group that oversaw the RBCT, stated in his final report that

“implementation of cattle control measures outlined in this report are, in the absence of badger culling, likely to reverse the increasing trend in cattle disease incidence.”

Improving biosecurity must also take priority, as well as stricter testing and movement restrictions. We can see that measures are already playing a part in bringing down the incidence of bovine TB. Others have mentioned the figures recently released by DEFRA showing that during 2013 there was a 14% reduction in the number of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors or direct contacts. We have also seen the evidence from Wales, where a combination of biosecurity, cattle movement restrictions and vaccination is being used to reduce bovine TB, and where the number of cattle herds with the disease fell by 23.6% last year.

This is a complex topic, but my asks of the Minister are simple. First, he should look at the evidence and stop the badger culls for good. He should grant no more licences to shoot badgers, and stop wasting time, money and energy on an approach that is making matters worse. As others have said, bovine TB is too important for us to cherry-pick the evidence. As we reflect on the culls, let us make sure that we put science at the centre of future policy. If the Government were minded to continue with any kind of culling programme, they absolutely must come back to this House first and subject that decision to a vote, because I am convinced that we would win it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate.

It is far too early to draw conclusions from the report. The House has not yet seen the report properly, and all we are acting on are leaks from it. I have full confidence in the Secretary of State and the other DEFRA Ministers to analyse the report properly and to come to this House with their conclusions. Where we need to cull badgers and it can be done humanely, we must carry on doing so.

Many Members have referred to their own constituencies. It is very likely that vaccinating badgers in a rural constituency with very little TB in cattle, and hardly any TB in the badger population, will be effective—badgers must be vaccinated annually, but that will do a very good job. However, in a constituency such as mine, where some 25% of herds are restricted and are testing positive for TB, and there is a huge amount of TB in the badger population, any amount of vaccination will not cure the infected badger.

The British Veterinary Association has said:

“Scientific evidence proves that badgers and cattle spread bTB to cattle and that the targeted culling of badgers does reduce the levels of infection in cattle herds. Cattle vaccination will be an essential part of the long term strategy to eradicate bTB but will not be available in the UK until at least 2023.”

Will we really be able to wait until 2023, and continue to destroy some 35,000 cattle a year—some 5,600 a year in Devon alone? We cannot go on doing that.

This mythical vaccine was offered to farmers throughout the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Is it any wonder that those poor farmers are pulling their hair out and are almost suicidal because they cannot cure their herds of TB? They are testing their cattle every six weeks. Anyone who tries to organise such tests time and time again, running all those cattle through cattle crushes, will find that it is a huge effort, not just physical but emotional.

When the farmers have tested the cattle and established that they no longer have TB, and when the reactors have been taken away, what do the farmers do? In the spring and summer they turn their cattle out on to the edges of Exmoor and the Blackdown hills, where there are huge grasslands that are very good for the production of dairy and beef. When the cattle are out in those fields, it is almost impossible to prevent them from mixing with an infected badger population.

We need cross-party support in this place for action in those areas in particular. It will not be possible to eradicate TB by means of vaccination alone; it will be necessary to remove the infected badgers. The point of carrying out pilots rather than randomised badger culling trials was to establish hard boundaries in order to ensure that there had been no perturbation that would spread the disease to surrounding areas. I hope that the report will provide evidence of that. What the randomised cull did do was reduce the amount of TB in those areas by some 28% or 29%, which shows that the controlling and culling of badgers does work.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we need to look at the report. I would be the first to say, as many other Members have, that if we are going to cull, we must be certain that we can cull humanely. If we have to trap more badgers in order to cull them, let us do so.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

I had to wait all afternoon to speak, so I do not think that I will give way.

We have tried for 30 years to control bovine TB In this country, and all that we have seen is increase after increase. We cannot go on doing this for ever, because in the end we will not have a viable cattle herd, and we will not have the food security that we all seek. We must get to grips with this disease.

Finally, let me deal with the myth about what is and is not supposed to be happening in the Republic of Ireland. This is the point on which I really disagree with other Members. It is possible to argue that opossums may be slightly different from badgers in Ireland, but the differences between badgers in Ireland and badgers in Devon are very few. [Interruption.] I have listened throughout the afternoon to speeches from the Members who are interrupting, and I have remained very quiet. Perhaps the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) will now listen to what I have to say.

Recent figures from Ireland show that TB infection levels have fallen by more than 45% since 2000. They are now slaughtering fewer than half the cattle they needed to some 10 years ago. This is a substantial reduction that the Irish Government believe their badger culling programme has significantly contributed to. The culling of badgers is the only significant difference between the current approaches taken in England and Ireland; the cattle restrictions and cattle movement orders are virtually the same. Last year 15,612 cattle tested positive in Ireland which represents a 15% reduction on the 2012 levels. The Irish Government have said TB eradication is now a practical proposition in Ireland after the latest figures show a substantial drop in reactor numbers in 2013.

I now quote from the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine:

“We believe that, while it is difficult to quantify the precise impact of badger culling on the reduction in the incidence of TB, much of the improvement in the TB situation is due to the badger removal programme.”

Therefore, the Irish believe culling badgers has worked to reduce TB in the Republic of Ireland.

In a county such as the one I represent in Devon where over a quarter of the herds are restricted, where we are slaughtering 5,500 cattle a year and where probably about 40% of our badger population are infected with bovine TB, we have to take action not only in cleaning the cattle and having stricter cattle movements, but in making sure those badgers are clean so there is no TB in them If we do that, when we turn our cattle out, it will be safe to do so, and when we drink our milk it will be safe to do so. When our tourists come to Devon and Cornwall and the west country, they will come to see the beautiful herds of beef cattle, such as Devon reds grazing there, that are not infected by TB.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I begin by picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick): this is an incredibly difficult disease to fight, and there are no easy answers in the war against TB. There are several reasons for that. First, it is a very slow-growing, insidious disease, which makes it incredibly difficult to detect. It has been hard to get a reliable means of diagnosis. Secondly, the disease lives within the cell wall of blood cells, and that makes it very difficult to get a vaccine to work. That is why the BCG vaccine, which is the only thing that we have, is only partially effective and provides no cure. That is why the Government have been very clear that we need to pursue a range of options to roll back the disease. We are clear that no one measure on its own will work; instead, we need to pursue a range of strategies to bear down on the disease. We set those out clearly in our draft TB eradication strategy, the final version of which will be published shortly. It sets out a range of options; I want to come back to that, because this is an area in which I think there will be consensus across the House.

There is one area where, clearly, we take a different view from the Opposition. Our view is that nowhere in the world has managed successfully to tackle TB without also dealing with the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. A couple of hon. Members have attempted to cast doubt on that—they have mentioned possums in New Zealand and asked whether the case is the same—but in Ireland and France, cull strategies have been successfully pursued.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will not give way. I want to carry on and make this point, because there were lots of issues raised. If Members do not accept that international comparisons are relevant, I say: look at the historical comparisons. We got on top of TB in the 1960s and ’70s by pursuing a badger cull strategy. Early attempts through measures such as the clean ring strategy pursued by Dunnet in the late ’80s had some success. The RBCTs that the previous Government ran also showed a 16% reduction in the disease.

I want to say a little about vaccination, because we recognise that it can provide some benefits. It can pass on some immunity to cubs, and can cause less disturbance to the badger population, but there are difficulties with it. The badgers have to be successfully trapped and vaccinated; St Ives—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has talked to me about this—has managed to catch only seven in the past year. We should recognise that no vaccine is 100% effective; the evidence is that it is roughly 60% effective.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

No, I will not; I will keep going.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I expect my hon. Friend will do better next year.

As I said, we are spending £1.6 million a year developing an oral vaccine. We have made some progress on the dose required for that vaccine, and it is around 10 times more than would be needed for an injectable vaccine. We have also made some progress towards identifying a bait that would be successful, and we have made some progress towards linking the vaccine to fats that can help get it through the digestive system. But there are drawbacks even to an oral vaccine. Not all badgers will take it, and some badgers may eat more of it than others, so it will never be 100%. But we accept that nothing in this challenge is 100% and that is why we are pursuing it.

On injectable vaccines, I have had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) to look again at whether we could refocus some of our vaccination efforts, either in the edge area, as the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) suggested, or around the east Sussex area. I have said that we will look closely at that. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we are doing some work in that area now, and we would be willing to develop that further.

On cattle vaccines, the Secretary of State met the commissioner on this just last week. We are continuing to do some work to develop a DIVA test. Field trials will take three to five years, so as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it will be eight or nine years before we can get export clearance for the use of such a cattle vaccine. However, we are committed to taking this forward.

I agree with hon. Members that improving the control of cattle movements is an important tool in the fight against TB, but I simply point out that we have done a lot already. We now have annual testing in the high-risk area, and four-yearly testing across the whole country. We have banned practices such as approved quarantine units. We now have radial testing in the low-risk areas where we get an outbreak. We have stopped cattle going to major shows since July 2012. We have introduced risk-based trading to help farmers manage the risks. We have an ongoing consultation about restricting movements and introducing pre-movement and post-movement tests to common land. We are introducing deductions for farmers who are late in having their TB test, and we have reduced the pre-movement testing window from 60 to 30 days. So we are doing a huge amount, but I accept that we should be constantly looking to improve and do more, and we are looking, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) suggested, at whether more could be done, for instance, on biosecurity measures.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to run out of time and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main).

On effectiveness, we have already published the numbers of badgers that were culled in both Somerset, where it was 940, and Gloucester, where it was 921. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) invited me to speculate on what the effect on the population might have been from the recent flooding. One lesson that we have learnt is that it is difficult precisely to estimate badger populations. The RBCT did not use head trapping of the sophistication that we did, rather it used things like sett surveys, and there is a huge amount of doubt about whether it had a clear understanding of the badger population.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) have highlighted that the RBCT concluded that the aim should be to remove 70% of the badger population. We accept that and that is why we had that as a target. However, it is wrong to say that if that target is not hit in the first year, the disease will be made worse. The RBCT clearly showed that three of the 10 test areas where there was a proactive cull got between 30% and 40% in year one, but provided that was sustained in subsequent years, it went on to have a significant impact in reducing the disease.

Finally, on the humaneness issue, I know that this is a sentimental matter for many people. In fact, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) highlighted the poem “The Badger”. All I will say is that I hope that hon. Members can develop some perspective, because shooting is used as a means of controlling foxes and all sorts of other wildlife. If hon. Members were to go to Bushy park or Richmond park in September and October, they would find signs up saying that a cull of deer was going on and so the park was closed. No one would bat an eyelid. I hope that we can develop some perspective—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I am not going to give way, but I know what the hon. Lady is going to say.

We recognise that there are challenges with shooting badgers. That is why we issued best practice guidance that specified a range of less than 70 metres using a rifle, that they should target the chest, the type of rifle that could be used and that the animal must be stationary and over a bait point. It might be that lessons can be learnt from that to improve the proficiency of marksmen and we can obviously consider that.

I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) about monitoring. He said that it was insufficient and we do not accept that. We were required to monitor 60 of the culls but monitored 88 and we were required to carry out 120 post-mortems but carried out 150. We did more monitoring than was required.

As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, this is a devastating disease having a devastating impact on cattle farmers. When I visited one of the Gloucester culls I met a Gloucestershire farmer who had been under restriction for 12 years. He was not moving cattle on or off; it was being caused not by cattle but by a large badger sett on his farm that was infected by TB. I saw another farmer who had lost an entire pedigree herd as a result of the disease. We know that if we do nothing it will cost us £1 billion over the next 10 years and, as I said at the start, although we are pursuing a range of options, no single measure on its own is the solution to the problem. There is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has successfully tackled TB without also tackling the reservoir of disease in the wildlife population.

Managing Flood Risk

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman will have listened carefully to the four headings that I set out—the different types of maintenance, of which dredging is a small part.

I turn to the flood defence maintenance funding for the coming financial years. It is with some sorrow that I see the reduction in the headline figures for flood defence maintenance, from £172 million in the financial year 2010-11 to £147 million for 2013-14. I hope that in discussing the supplementary budget, the debate will achieve one thing: an increase in maintenance from revenue funding and a more general grasp of the importance of maintenance in all its forms to preventing flooding in future. The Environment Agency’s £147 million maintenance funding for 2013-14 is allocated as follows, in accordance with the four maintenance categories that I rehearsed earlier. I repeat that there is only £30 million this year for clearing watercourses, normally referred to as dredging, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. For operation there is £44 million, for structures there is £52 million and for mechanical electrical instrumentation control and automation there is £21 million.

The role of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in climate change is narrow; it is about adaptation and seeking to increase resilience. However, it would help to allow the conveyance of water, to slow the flow with land management schemes upstream—dredging, desilting and other means—and to stop fast-growing willow coppice from blocking watercourses in order to allow the water to flow away in Somerset, Yorkshire and other areas across the country, to prevent flooding.

My Committee and I absolutely accept that there is no one-stop option that will prevent all forms of flooding; maintenance, as well as land management upstream schemes, has to be considered.

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

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is incoherence at the heart of the Government’s policy on climate change and flooding? The Prime Minister said that money was no object when it came to the relief effort to clear up after floods, but less than two weeks later he was handing huge new subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; when those fossil fuels are burned, extreme weather events, including flooding, are made more likely. Does she agree with the commentator who said today that that is like promising to rebuild Dresden while ordering more bombers to flatten it again?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that I believe that there is an incoherence in policy. We import woodchip at huge expense from the United States and other parts of the country to co-fire coal at Drax power station in Selby; I should be encouraging farmers in north Yorkshire and all around the country to grow fast-growing willow coppice trees to co-fire that power station. There are inconsistencies and incoherence in our renewals policy and we should visit those as part of our flood prevention scheme.

We have seen just about every type of flooding possible since autumn last year—coastal flooding, tidal surges, river flooding and overtopping, surface water flooding and, most recently, groundwater flooding. We know that all this has been the worst flooding incident in this country in 250 years, since 1766. This debate is the opportunity for the Department to share how the Government seek to adapt to more extreme weather events and how we are becoming more resilient and building more appropriately. Given what was asked at Communities and Local Government questions earlier, I am not sure that the House is entirely convinced that we are yet building in the most appropriate places—that is, not in areas that have something to do with flooding in their name or that act as functional floodplains.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Last month in Brighton and Hove, local emergency services, utilities, the city council and other stakeholders worked together with admirable determination to help the residents who were at significant risk of groundwater and surface water flooding.

It has become clear that the overall pot of money for which local authorities have to bid for flood protection projects is far from adequate. It would help if the process for applying for funds were simplified. I would like to know whether Ministers are considering improvements in that area. This winter’s events have also shown that we need long-term policies and investment to address all types of flooding, including not only coastal and river flooding, but groundwater and surface water flooding.

Despite the limited increase in investment in flood defences, funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will still be about £1.4 billion behind what the Environment Agency says it will need between 2015 and 2021 just to stop the flood risk getting even worse. It is clear that, as well as reversing the cuts to the Environment Agency budget and investing properly in flood defences, we must factor in climate change projections on the future cost of extreme weather. As the current approach ignores that, the Committee on Climate Change warned recently that the spending plans would result in about 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035.

Many hon. Members have raised the cost-benefit ratio rule. Currently, projects have to deliver an 8:1 return on investment. Why is that the case, when HS2 must deliver only a 2:1 return? Decent investment would reduce the average rate of return, but it would also reduce the overall amount of flood damage. Will the Government review that rule to help local authorities invest in the flood protection that they know is required?

At the very least, we need a commitment that spending on flood protection will be increased in line with the expert recommendations of the Environment Agency and the Committee on Climate Change. In considering how to fund that, a good place to start would be to redirect just some of the billions of pounds of subsidies and tax breaks that go the fossil fuel industry.

Last week, I received a report from the Sussex Wildlife Trust that sets out an evidence-based approach to flood protection that was produced by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, which is made up of independent and professional people who are experts in their field. The report reinforces a key lesson that we need to learn from the recent floods: not only that our spending on flood protection is shockingly inadequate and that we must not have Ministers who deny the link between the burning of fossil fuels, man-made climate change, extreme weather and enormous threats to our society—threats that the Government are exacerbating through their inequitable and unscientific climate targets and their obsession with helping big energy companies to extract every last drop of oil and gas that is out there—but, crucially, that there must be a fundamental shift towards seeking to work with nature, rather than against it. Not only would such an approach benefit wildlife and nature, but it is the best way to reduce our vulnerability to flooding and extreme weather events and to increase our resilience.

[Mr Redwood]

On that point, is the hon. Lady a supporter of the Environment Agency’s policy in the Somerset levels over recent years of not dredging on the grounds that it might damage habitats?

[Caroline Lucas]

Dredging is often pulled out of the hat as if it were a silver bullet. Dredging can have a positive effect if it is done in certain places at certain times. In other places, it does not have a positive effect. In the Somerset levels, it could have been done a little earlier, but it certainly would not have massively reduced what we are seeing now. We need a much more holistic response, which is what Sussex Wildlife Trust is talking about.

[Mr Bellingham]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the defences around the Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire fens are comprehensive and holistic in that they involve not only tidal barrages, but pumping stations, relief channels and dredging? That combined approach protects a vast amount of Britain’s farmland.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am very pleased to hear that, but the comprehensive approach that I am talking about must involve a much wider evaluation of how we use land. For example, we must consider what use farm subsidies are being put to and whether they are inadvertently encouraging unhelpful ways of using land. I am referring to something rather larger than the holistic approach the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

First, we know that allowing development on floodplains puts more people at risk. Secondly, we know that compacted soil and damaged uplands channel water downstream faster. Thirdly, we know that climate change is making extreme rainfall events more frequent and intense. I will outline briefly the solutions we need in each of those areas—solutions that work with nature, rather than against it.

The Government’s ongoing attacks on the planning system are a real problem. Sensible, long-term development control in the public interest is being sacrificed at the altar of mindless, short-term GDP growth at any cost. Development on floodplains and in areas of high flood risk, not just now but for the lifetime of a housing development, needs a stronger, more accountable planning system. We must ditch the current approach that casts sensible planning rules and regulations as a barrier to growth and planners, according to the Prime Minister, as enemies of enterprise.

Crucially, we know that not all decisions about development on floodplains are taken by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can use his power to call in or recover a planning application. So why is it so difficult to obtain basic information about this from his Department? A written question that I tabled back on 5 February remains unanswered. I hope that the message will reach the Secretary of State and that he will tell us today how many times he has exercised his power to call in a planning application to approve or reject housing or commercial development on a floodplain or in an area of flood risk.

It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to point the finger at local councils, nor is it good enough for him to say that 99% of proposed new residential units that the Environment Agency objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with Environment Agency advice when the decisions are known. What about all the others? Why will the Government not give us the full picture? The fact that my question remains unanswered a whole month later raises suspicions about whether the Secretary of State has been overruling local authorities or Environment Agency advice and allowing development to proceed in areas at risk of flooding. I hope that that is not the case, but we need to see the statistics and we need to see them now.

A month ago, I also tabled a written question on the impact of recent and future flooding on small businesses.

[Andrew Percy]

On building on floodplains, the view from Brighton might be quite different from that in my part of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire where such building is almost unavoidable because the land is drained marshland surrounded by rivers that drain 20% of the UK’s water. We have a desperate need of affordable housing to help local people who want to live locally. The matter is not as simple as just stopping all building on floodplains, which would price more of my constituents out of the housing market.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His point is reasonable, but in areas that he describes—they are not typical but they certainly exist and he has intimate knowledge of them—the architecture could be different with houses on stilts and resilience in the building process. That is not happening right now, which is why we are seeing so much flooding causing so much misery for so many people throughout the country.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make a little more progress.

Turning to land management of uplands particularly, we need a radical rethink to take proper account of climate change and to reduce the threat to people’s homes and livelihoods, and to food security. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently confirmed that the rules farmers must meet to obtain public subsidies do not cover flood risk. In some cases, the conditions on farm payments may be making the situation worse through over-grazing and removal of vegetation. We must look seriously at whether that is good use of public money, and introduce changes to ensure that such payments are conditional on flood prevention.

The Government must stop their irresponsible use of public money by ensuring that flood prevention is a non-negotiable condition of all farm subsidies. Farmers and land managers know what the slow water solutions are.

[Mr Browne]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I have given way a lot, and I fear that Mr Speaker will tell me to wind up.

We need better soil management as well as better water management, not least because that reduces the silting up of river beds further downstream. Approaches that help more water to remain in the uplands, where there may be peat bogs, rather than going downstream into people’s living rooms, can seriously improve water quality and have the potential to cut water bills for households.

Finally, on climate change, I regret that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is not here because his comments during the debate last week were complacent at best and reckless at worst. If he were here, he could clear up the basic matter of what he thinks is man-made and what is natural when it comes to the increased risk of extreme weather. In the same breath as he mentioned the Met Office, he said that there “might” be either short-term or long-term trends. On what basis does he query the long-term trend, let alone its seriousness? The Met Office states:

“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

If the Secretary of State has the evidence, let us see it. The only supposed authority he offered in support of his views is Lord Lawson—not a scientist of any sort but a staunch defender of the fossil fuel industry and head of a campaign group that lobbies against the Government’s climate change policies.

When talking about what he knows about climate science, why does the Secretary of State choose not to quote a climate scientist? When he has read Hansard later, perhaps he will confirm whether he has read the recent joint report by the leading UK and US scientific institutions—the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences—which finds that man-made climate change is more certain than ever and will post severe threats to society and infrastructure. Will he agree to meet Sir Paul Nurse and the authors of the report to ensure that his approach to defending the realm takes account of the realities and the risks of climate change?

I accept that the Secretary of State said last week that

“the risk is there to our nation”.—[Official Report, 26 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 335.]

Let us therefore keep to the theory of risk rather than uncertainty, which, as we all know, is a well-known tactic of obfuscation and delaying action used by those with vested interests, from the tobacco to the fossil fuel lobbies. If we talk about this in terms of risk rather than uncertainty, it is like thinking about what is more important, risk or certainty, when we decide whether to get on a plane, vaccinate our children, or insure our homes and valuable belongings, or even whether to cross a busy road. Does a rational and responsible parent say, “I’m not 100% sure that my child will definitely get a really serious disease, so I’m not going to vaccinate them”? If one has just bought a new house, is the sensible approach to say, “I’m not 100% certain that my house will burn down, so I’m not going to bother with home insurance”? No. Unless we have a science and risk-based approach to protecting UK homes and businesses from future flood risk and extreme weather, the Secretary of State will be failing in his aim to ensure that our citizens are safe.

I also object to the Secretary of State’s view that the climate debate is polarised, as he claimed, between sceptics and zealots. Organisations such as the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, insurance industry bodies, the World Economic Forum and PwC have clearly paid a lot more attention to the science than he has. These organisations, which are not in any way environmentalist, are all warning that if we continue with business as usual and fail to make radical cuts to emissions, we are on course to seeing 4°, if not 6°, of climate change within our children’s lifetimes.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I think the hon. Lady takes issue with the Secretary of State on the wrong point. There is a danger of hectoring. Given such overwhelming scientific evidence, it should be a straightforward matter to bring people on board in seeing that there is a risk that needs to be managed, but the debate has somehow become partisan and divided. Perhaps she, and all of us, could think about how we get our language right so that we create an inclusive approach, and then we can argue about the best response, not divide on the basis of belief.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that the Secretary of State is one of the first people who ought to be trying to generate that inclusive approach to climate change. Instead, he has been doing exactly the opposite in referring to people as zealots and saying that those who promote a risk-based approach to climate change are completely off the agenda. I entirely agree that we could look at our language, but let us take the fight to where it starts, which is with the Secretary of State’s response to the flooding debate last week.

I can tell, Mr Speaker, that you would like me to conclude very shortly, so I shall be brief. I find it extraordinary that although this debate is about something we can agree on—we all want to reduce the impacts of flooding on the communities we represent—many of us are not prepared to look at the likely causes of extreme weather events of the kind that we have been seeing in recent weeks. If I sound frustrated, that is where my level of frustration is coming from. As the Secretary of State spoke only of adapting to climate change rather than turning off the fossil fuel tap to prevent more climate change from reaching dangerous levels in the first place, perhaps he would like to explain to the House what 6° of climate change might look like, or even what 4° of climate change would mean for the UK, and exactly how he would adapt to those changes. So far we have seen only 0.8° of climate change, but perhaps some people in Somerset, let alone communities elsewhere in the world, might argue that the situation is already dangerous.

If this Government want credibility as regards protecting the UK from the increased risk of flooding and other climate risks, we need radical action to cut emissions in line with both science and equity. That means leaving about 80% of known fossil fuels in the ground, not handing out tax breaks to companies to find and exploit yet more reserves of oil and gas that we cannot afford to burn. It means not just accepting but strengthening the fourth carbon budget in line with the science, to secure the economic and employment benefits of leading the transition to a zero-carbon economy. It means leadership to ensure that action on climate change is not just an issue for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but a top priority for all the Government.

The flooding has led to many words being spoken in the House about resilience, and the importance of taking the right long-term decisions for our future and that of our children, but action, not just words on climate change, is the litmus test of whether or not they are meaningful.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I agree with his advice to listen to experts; we have just had the privilege of listening to his expertise from his undersung time as Minister with responsibility for these issues.

I speak as one whose home has flooded; what I bring to the debate is the ability to speak as someone who has had that misfortune. I am slightly confused about the number of people who have been flooded in this round of utterly dreadful weather. The number of people flooded in Kent and Surrey around the Christmas period appears to be 7,500. Now we are being told that the number is about 7,000 for the whole country, although many hundreds of homes in various constituencies have been flooded since then. Will the Minister give us the numbers and say on what basis a comparison is being made between the 55,000 who were flooded in 2007 and the number who have been flooded this time?

The central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was that a great number of people owe the security of their homes to the measures that have been taken since 2007, and he was correct. Given how awful the weather has been, we should reflect that things could have been a great deal worse. In common with what other Members have seen, my experience of having been flooded has been that friends and neighbours have been absolutely terrific in rallying round. I am grateful to my immediate neighbours for the help that they afforded me and my family on Christmas eve and subsequently.

I also want to commend—I declare an interest, of course, as a flood victim—the exemplary behaviour of the insurance industry in my case and all the others I have seen. It appears to have stepped up to the plate and done what it was supposed to do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) says from a sedentary position that it has not. Obviously, I would want to see that evidence and look forward to him making it clear. All I can do is reflect on my own experience and other reported cases. It is very easy to bash the insurance industry, but according to the evidence available to me it seems to be doing everything it should in the current circumstances.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on the Flood Re legislation. I note that the Select Committee’s report states that there should be a requirement to detail exactly how the scheme will work, but I assure my hon. Friend that it has been an absolute lifeline for people in my position that the value of our principal asset has not been utterly destroyed. Many thousands of people are immensely grateful for the work he has done in bringing that scheme to the starting gate.

I also want to place on record my thanks to the Government for the measures they have taken during the course of this crisis. The £5,000 grant to make my house, along with all the other houses that have been flooded, more resilient is immensely sensible. I want to take some measures, but they are plainly not insured so the insurance company will not be able to address them. The grant is, therefore, of immense help. I am certain that my reaction will be mirrored by everyone else who has been flooded. It is a really sensible, helpful proposal by the Government. From what I have seen of how people can apply for the scheme, it is being managed appropriately. Council tax relief for people who are no longer able to occupy their homes is also entirely reasonable.

I want to make two central points, one of which picks up on those made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She spoke of the need for us as a country to invest sensibly in flood protection and I agree entirely with her. The Pitt review was right and the scale of our investment in flood defence needs, to be frank, a step change. It has been said that an increase of £20 million a year is needed over the course of 25 years to get to the right level. Given how fast the climate seems to be changing, however, I do not think that is enough. We need to get to the level of expenditure envisaged by the Pitt review rather quicker than the 25 years he recommended when he wrote the report. That seems to be self-evident.

As a number of hon. Members have suggested, this is a sensible investment measure because it will result in huge savings. We ought to look at the expected 8:1 return currently being examined by the Environment Agency with regard to investment schemes and the cost-benefit analysis. That does not seem right to me.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on some matters on which we have co-operated, but I am afraid that I buy Lord Lawson’s general approach. There is a limited amount that the United Kingdom can do on its own to address global climate change. We have to try to carry the other nations of the world with us in order to do what we can to try to improve the climate, but I agree with his general proposition that limiting our ability to grow our economy and to have the wealth to create the protection schemes would be the wrong approach. If we hobble our economy by trying to reduce climate change through occasionally economically illiterate energy schemes, we will simply not be able to afford flood defences or have the money to defend ourselves against the consequences. It is also highly unlikely—we would be extremely lucky if this happened—that we would be able to carry the Indians, the Chinese and the rest of the world with us towards the standards we will deliver in Europe.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is precisely the people who seem to think that investing in the green economy is somehow a distraction from getting out of our economic difficulties who are economically illiterate. If we put resources into the green economy—insulating every home and properly investing in renewable energies—it will be good for the economy. The green economy is the one bit of the economy that is doing pretty well, so it is a false dichotomy.

[Mr Blunt]

It is not, if Governments of all hues are tempted to decide which particular subsidy they give to which particular scheme, regardless of their environmental merits in continuing to reduce greenhouse gases. That is what we have seen: when we are in positions of Executive authority, we are all tempted to have our pet schemes to deliver. We should always look to reduce the totality of our contribution to carbon change, consistent with what can be delivered around the rest of the world, so that the whole world acts together. We should not unfairly handicap ourselves, but try to carry the rest of the world with us, and allow the market to make a sensible decision about how we address humanity’s contribution to climate change.

In his extremely good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) elucidated all the very sensible measures that ought to be taken by any community facing flood risk. I can only commend his speech to other hon. Members and to all those interested in this field.

From my experience, I know that the only way my home can be protected is if the schemes happening around Gatwick airport, the area from which the water comes down the River Mole to me, are decent floodwater storage schemes. They need to be properly designed by the Environment Agency to ensure that the water is stored and not simply poured off the second runway—God help us if we get it—and sent downstream to flood communities living below Gatwick.

I know that the Environment Agency has taken a kicking from many quarters, but I must say that from what I have seen it appears to be the best reservoir—that is the right term—of expertise for our country. We should support and use it, and I commend the work of the officials I have met. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury nodding: if he is nodding, I am pretty satisfied that that judgment is right.

Having declared my interest, I conclude by thanking the Government for the way in which they have managed the crisis over the past two or three months. The proposals that they have put in place, which are inevitably for the short and medium-term, are what I would expect the Cobra co-ordinating mechanism to do in the circumstances. However, there is a long-term issue to address: the scale of our country’s investment in flood defence is not adequate, as was identified between 2007 and 2009, and I suggest that we need to address it faster than we currently propose to do.

Flooding

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in respect of the latter point. I must also say that I was a little concerned that, for once, the Prime Minister’s reputation for being an expert on PR and spin seemed to have gone a little bit wrong when he turned up in Wales to announce an initiative that did not apply to Wales. Perhaps that will give my hon. Friend a strong argument to go back to the Prime Minister to ask him whether that initiative will now apply to Wales.

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

I welcome the call in the motion for

“cross-party talks on the impact of climate change”,

and I very much hope that the smaller parties will be included in those cross-party talks. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting UK citizens from the worst of climate change means that we need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground and that the last thing we should be doing is exploring for yet more sources of oil and gas, whether or not that includes shale gas?

[Maria Eagle]

I will say a little about climate change later in my remarks, but the hon. Lady has certainly made her point.

After the Prime Minister became involved, one by one the measures that had been resisted for weeks have finally been announced: vital assistance from the armed forces; funding to help households, businesses and farms, although much of the detail needs to be clarified; council tax exemptions, after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition forced a welcome U-turn; and a hastily convened meeting with the insurance industry, although it is far from clear what that meeting has delivered in terms of faster payouts. Those measures should have been put in place when the water levels first rose, at the end of last year.

A great many questions still need to be answered about the assistance that is available. For example, the Business Secretary has suggested that VAT on flood repairs should be reduced. Perhaps the Communities Secretary can clarify matters and say whether that suggestion is now Government policy, or was it just being floated as part of the Liberal Democrats’ so-called differentiation strategy?

After the floods of 2007, half of those who were forced to leave their homes were back in them within six months, yet many of those people had to wait much longer for the money needed to sort out the damage. I hope that the Communities Secretary will update the House on what discussions with the insurance industry have led to. In particular, can he say whether the Government agree with the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a new industry standard, because taking 12 months to complete a claim seems far too long?

There is still a lack of clarity on the time scale for restoring the rail link between Exeter and Newton Abbot, following the collapse at Dawlish. Initially, it was claimed that the work could be completed within six weeks, but now we are told that the line may not reopen until mid-April. With up to £20 million a day being lost by businesses, I hope that the Communities Secretary will provide an update on efforts to achieve an earlier reopening of this vital transport link.

We have heard nothing from Ministers on what specific steps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking to help our fishing fleets, particularly in the south-west. Many fishermen have been unable to work since Christmas and consequently now face a desperate financial crisis. After two months of no fishing, damaged boats and lost equipment, the Communities Secretary will, I hope, provide some clarity on what help will be available to that vital British industry.

There are growing concerns about the impact on the tourism industry, which is vital for the economy of the south-west in particular. It is reported that a quarter of all tourism operators have experienced cancellations, and 40% have seen fewer forward bookings during a vital period for organising summer breaks. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responding to the debate, can set out what the Government have done to ensure that people are aware that all parts of Britain are open for business.

Ministers continue to be silent about whether or not an application is to be made to the European Union solidarity fund. After the 2007 floods, the previous Government successfully secured £110 million as a contribution to the cost of recovery. After the UK special abatement mechanism, the net value is £31 million. Considering that that is more than the total extra money announced for this year, it is surprising that securing that funding does not appear to be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure the House that some kind of anti-EU political dogma is not standing in the way. We look forward to hearing what he can tell us about what is going on.

The Government were caught sleeping on the job when the severe weather first hit the country in December, but the roots of this failure go back to the ill-judged decision made by the Government after the 2010 election significantly to reduce the funding available for flood protection. The budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to be cut, but it is a question of what the priorities ought to be. A decision was made to target the flood defences budget, despite all the evidence that investing in flood defences saves more than it costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend knows that, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government are making investment in flood protection schemes a key priority. We have secured record investment in the next spending review period to do that. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me about those specific schemes, I would be happy to hear more.

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

The remit of the independent expert panel was originally restricted to the planned six-week badger cull period and my understanding is that that remit was not extended when the badger culls were themselves extended. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House today that the independent expert panel’s scope and report will cover the whole of the culling period and not just the first six weeks, because it is really important that his decisions are informed by wider experience of the whole cull?

[George Eustice]

The independent expert panel will cover the initial cull period, not the extensions.

Flooding

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I worked closely on this matter when he was my colleague in DEFRA. Together, we have come to a number of schemes that are being piloted—seven across the country—allowing local farmers and landlords to clear their own low-risk waterways, under supervision from the Environment Agency; but obviously, if that work is to go ahead and be meaningful, there must be proper dredging of rivers, and we will work on that with the Environment Agency.

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

How does the Secretary of State expect people to believe his claims that flood management is a priority for the Government when, in addition to the Environment Agency cuts, he has seen the decision to slash DEFRA’s team working on climate change adaptation from 38 officials to six and when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has scrapped the obligation for councils to prepare for the impacts of climate change? Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that that illustrates an incredibly reckless approach to the risks that extreme weather presents? Will he confirm whether he has found time to hold even one meeting with his Department’s chief scientific adviser on this matter—something that he had failed to do until a few months ago?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I cannot blame her for the economic mess that we inherited, but sadly, when we were borrowing £300,000 a minute—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are still chuntering. They are still in denial, and they are not apologising to the British people. When we were borrowing £300,000 a minute, we had to make difficult decisions. The hon. Lady must acknowledge, because she has been here while I made these decisions in the past 16 months, that we have increased spending in this round up to 2015 and that we have an ambitious programme of £2.3 billion, as I have just said. Hon. Members should therefore look at what we are doing on the ground and look at the benefits, with 1 million properties protected over Christmas.

Badger Cull

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government should look at evidence from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—and, indeed, listen to the expert scientific evidence.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentioned my parliamentary question, but does he also share my concern that the Government appear to have done so few post-mortems on badgers that we do not know what the results are? Does he further agree that, in light of the shambles around the current culling policy, there is a real danger that the Government will go down the route of gassing? Gassing is incredibly inhumane. The real answer, which is also cheaper and more effective, is to vaccinate badgers. That is what we should do.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will address her point a little later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

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

[Simon Hart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

I add my congratulations to those given to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate. It is critical that MPs should be properly involved in future decisions about the control of TB, and that those decisions should be voted on by the House.

The pilot badger cull can be judged only a spectacular failure, including against the Government’s own terms of reference. No one is leaping to premature conclusions because some of the figures speak for themselves. The policy specified that a minimum of 70% of the badger population should be removed within a single six-week period but, as colleagues have said, contractors are estimated to have removed 65% of the population in the Somerset zone after nine weeks of culling, and less than 40% of the Gloucestershire population after 11 weeks and two days.

We know that killing too few badgers over an extended time frame not only risks further reducing the already modest long-term reduction of new herd TB incidence in cattle that the Government were predicting, but crucially is likely to make things even worse for farmers because of perturbation of the remaining badger populations leading to increased prevalence of bovine TB infection among badgers.

The pilots were also supposed to determine the humaneness of controlled shooting as a method of culling badgers, but only 155 badgers have been subject to post mortem examination during the pilot culls—almost 100 fewer than the low number that DEFRA originally said would be examined. There are no guarantees that all the badgers will have died as a result of shooting. Like me, hon. Members will have heard reports of contractors picking up badger carcasses from roadsides, for example, to meet their quotas.

I have asked the Minister how many of the badgers submitted for post mortem examination were killed as a result of free shooting. He assures me that any cause of death other than shooting would have been identified, but he has so far been unable—perhaps unwilling—to give me the numbers. The issue is important because it impacts on whether we have sufficient evidence to judge the humaneness of controlled shooting. I hope the Minister will provide the information today.

I am anxious that any assessment of humaneness should take account of badgers shot and wounded but not immediately killed. DEFRA has not released details of the exact criteria that the independent expert panel will use to determine humaneness. Having observed the shambles in the pilots to date, I have no confidence that the remainder of the process will be scientifically robust.

The pilots have proved conclusively that shooting is ineffective in removing the number of badgers required if there is to be any chance of reducing the incidence of bovine TB. We know that contractors resorted to cage trapping, which has been more effective than shooting and which any badger expert could have told DEFRA about before the start, but it is more expensive and ineffective overall compared with the alternatives to culling.

I want to make two key points. First, vaccination is a far better way forward.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that newer approaches to vaccination are emerging and could reduce the cost significantly? Is she aware of the work of the Sussex badger vaccination project, which has a team of volunteers who want to vaccinate? Such organisations should be given a chance to demonstrate their work.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I agree with him absolutely, and I am familiar with the Sussex badger vaccination project. As he rightly said, it is a service run by volunteers to offer landowners and farmers in East Sussex the chance to vaccinate badgers at very low cost, thereby providing a humane and less controversial method of tackling the disease. It has said that there is strong evidence that a programme of badger vaccination, combined with a robust cattle control programme, will produce better medium and long-term results than culling in eradicating bovine TB. It has many volunteers on hand to do that. It is just one example of how we could, with the right political commitment, take action that would make real gains in reducing bovine TB and its terrible consequences for our farmers.

The cost of the culls has spiralled out of control when the increased cost of cage trapping and expenditure on policing is taken into account. Based on analysis of DEFRA’s estimates, badger vaccination would cost the equivalent of £2,250 per sq km per year compared with the estimated £2,400 price tag per sq km for the pilot culls. Vaccination is the cheaper option and many other figures show that culling is even more expensive than the DEFRA figure that I cited.

My second reason, and the last point I want to make, is that vaccination works. It reduces the probability of infection by 70 to 75%, even allowing for the fact that not all badgers will be reached and that vaccination needs repeating year on year to include new cubs. It is still more effective and more cost effective than shooting, not least because vaccination allows the badger population structure to remain in place, granting considerable benefits for disease limitation.

My plea is that the Minister should focus on vaccination and rule out gassing, which is inhumane and ineffective. I have asked questions about that, and I am concerned about the responses. Investigation of a cattle vaccine should be a priority to provide some chance of getting rid of the disease.

Water Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to present a Bill that reflects my twin priorities of growing the economy and improving the environment. The Bill will promote growth for the long term, improve the resilience of our water supplies and the environment and increase choice for customers. Our White Paper on water sets out a vision for the future of the water sector. We need continued investment in our water and sewerage systems. We need investment in storing water and moving it to where it is needed; investment in maintaining our sewerage network and improving drainage, including through sustainable drainage options; investment that will protect our rivers through improvements to water quality; action to address over-abstraction; and investment in greater water efficiency.

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

Given that the Secretary of State says that it is designed to protect the environment, will he agree to amend the Bill to require fracking companies to have a full liability guarantee to cover a range of eventualities before an environmental permit is allocated? He will know that even if liability is proven, if the companies go bust the costs will still be passed on to the taxpayer, or to the water companies, which in turn will pass them on to the customer.

[Mr Paterson]

On the issue of fracking, I have made it absolutely clear that we will in no way dilute or diminish any of the existing regulations relating to the extraction of hydrocarbons from underground. A whole framework of different regulations is already laid down by European legislation, and we intend to respect them, but there is great merit in developing fracking, as we have seen in the dramatic reduction in gas prices in the States, with huge benefit to the US economy. We think we will see similar merits in our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way until I have finished answering the point the right hon. Gentleman has already made. Even if we get to such a point, there will be a significant period in which householders are subject to a monopoly. He must ensure that Ofwat has the relevant powers.

During our exchanges in the House in questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last Thursday, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he had taken between meeting the water companies in July, which he referred to in his letter, and his follow-up letter to them this month. He was not able to list a single action because the truth is that he did nothing for four months until he began acting under orders from No. 10. That was after the Prime Minister decided that he had no choice but to appear interested in the issue, following an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman made it clear in his letter to the water companies that he favours a voluntary approach, with companies deciding for themselves if and how to help those who are struggling. He does not propose any new powers to widen Ofwat’s scope to reopen pricing settlements between reviews, yet while customers pay among the highest bills in Europe, water companies are doing well from their monopoly position.

Last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, but paid out a staggering £1.8 billion to shareholders. We know they do that and that it is achieved through financial engineering designed to maximise their debt and minimise tax liabilities. That is unacceptable and morally wrong when people are struggling, and I believe people across the country will agree.

[Caroline Lucas]

With 40% of low-income households paying some of the highest bills, and three-quarters of our rivers being degraded through abstraction, does the hon. Lady agree that a privatised monopoly industry is failing our environment and consumers? Does she also agree that we need to move the Bill towards greater public ownership and public control of our water resources?

[Maria Eagle]

I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, but perhaps less so in practical terms with her latter point.

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Oscar Wilde famously spoke of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. If valuing nature in the way suggested will halt the current decline of our precious wildlife and habitats, it is to be welcomed, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need very strong safeguards, including in the planning system, to ensure that by putting a pound sign on priceless ecosystems such as ancient woodlands we do not inadvertently open the door to their destruction?

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and she is right to sound a warning note. This whole area is embryonic and it needs to be treated very carefully to make sure that we do not end up with the exact opposite outcomes to those we seek by introducing such thinking in the first place.

In setting up the NCC, the Government said that their ambition was that this should be the first generation to leave behind a superior natural environment to the one it inherited. During the 20th century we placed unprecedented demands on global ecosystems. World population grew by a factor of four. Carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions increased by a factor of 10. Fish catch escalated by a multiple of 35. This has had serious consequences.

In 2011, the first UK national ecosystem assessment found that one third of the UK’s ecosystem services were declining. It showed that if the UK’s ecosystems were protected and enhanced, they could add at least an extra £30 billion to the UK economy. By contrast, neglect and loss of ecosystem services may cost as much as £20 billion a year to the economy. As the NCC report says:

“The risk is that rather than underpinning future growth and prosperity, degraded natural capital assets will act as a break on progress and development.”

The situation is worse in many places overseas. The World Bank estimates that in 2008, the costs of natural capital loss could have been as high as 5% of national income in Brazil, 8% in India and 9% in China. It found that the UK’s natural capital losses stood at just over 2% of national income, although that number is almost certainly incomplete.

The NCC report concludes:

“Until this is addressed, our national accounts will continue to provide erroneous signals about future economic prospects.”

To that end, the NCC recommends that the work being undertaken by the Office for National Statistics to embed natural capital in the UK’s environmental accounts should be given the “greatest possible support” right across Government.

The NCC’s report also recommends that the Government should initiate a programme to provide high-quality evidence on the economic value of changes in natural capital to inform cost-benefit analyses. Let us consider land use change. That may involve alterations in agricultural outputs, which have market prices, but it may also lead to changes in other factors which do not, including outdoor recreation, carbon storage and water quality. The best way to compare changes in such vastly different goods and services is to compare them in common, monetary terms. Developing a system that can achieve that reliably will not be straightforward.

There has been recent progress in this area. The Government’s 2011 natural environment White Paper made a welcome commitment fully to include natural capital in the UK environment accounts, with the first changes coming into effect this year. On the international stage, the adoption by the UN Statistical Commission of the system for environmental economic accounts has been a major step forward.

The prize is considerable. Measuring and accounting for changes in natural capital assets, and improving the valuation of those changes, would help to support better economic decision making. It would improve the delivery of major public policy goals, such as food and energy security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and public health and well-being. In saying that, it is crucial that natural capital accounting is explained as a way of providing detailed information for better management of the economy. That needs to be done in a way that is coherent internationally but that resonates at home with a public who are concerned about seeing the more immediate benefits of economic growth.

This is not some doom-laden call for us to trade off economic growth for environmental protection. Pre-Victorian England was a low-carbon economy, but it did not deliver too much by way of prosperity. Rather, this is about demonstrating that better policy can result from integrating the value of natural capital into decision making, especially in a world whose population is rising inexorably.

That applies to Government and the world of business. The NCC report calls on the Government to work with leading companies, accounting bodies, landowners and managers to develop and test guidance on best practice in corporate natural capital accounting. As the chief financial officer of Unilever, Jean-Marc Huët, has said:

“The current financial reporting model only tells half the story about a business’s true performance and potential. The numbers say little of its reliance and impact on natural capital, factors that will increasingly influence competitiveness in a resource-scarce world.”

The NCC report is therefore an important document at all levels of policy making: national, local and commercial.

It was particularly welcome that the publication of the NCC report coincided with the launch earlier this year of the GLOBE International natural capital initiative. That is an international policy process driven by national parliamentarians, with the aim of incorporating the valuation of natural capital into policy and economic decision making.

In June this year, legislators from 20 countries participated in the first GLOBE natural capital legislation summit in the Bundestag. The summit considered the international context of the forthcoming UN post-2015 sustainable development goals, and how natural capital accounting should be addressed as a specific goal as well as a cross-cutting theme that affects the delivery of all development goals. For those who are living on less than $2 a day, half of all GDP comes from the environment and its biodiversity. It was therefore encouraging that goal 9 of the recent report of the high-level panel of eminent persons on the post-2015 development agenda, which was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, emphasised the importance of the sustainable management of natural resource assets to poverty eradication.

The GLOBE summit in June called on Governments everywhere fully to incorporate the value of natural capital into national accounting frameworks by 2020. It saw the publication of the first GLOBE natural capital legislation study, which reviewed the measures that eight countries, including the UK, are taking to integrate natural capital into policy and economic decision making. Unquestionably, there is a long way to go before natural capital is incorporated in national and corporate accounting across the world. However, the GLOBE study shows that the direction of travel is clear and that the eight countries covered, including the UK, are leading the way.

Embedding the concept of natural capital could mark a milestone on the road towards a more nuanced and complete understanding of our nation’s resources and the impact of our management of them. I congratulate the Government on the letter sent by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) in response to the report. I welcome its statement that

“The measurement, valuation and good management of our natural capital is crucial if we are to achieve sustainable economic growth and enhanced wellbeing in future.”

However, is that to be the only response from the Government, other than in this debate? My Select Committee insists on a formal Government response to each recommendation that is made in each of its reports. Surely these annual reports deserve just as serious and thorough a response.

Do the Government agree that there is a need for a framework with which to define and measure natural capital? If so, do they think that progress is being made quickly enough? Will they set up a risk register for natural capital, as is recommended in the NCC report, and if so, when? Will they give the Office for National Statistics the “greatest possible support” in its efforts to incorporate natural capital into the nation’s accounts, as recommended by the NCC?

The valuation of natural capital goes to the heart of the biggest question facing humanity: can we adjust our behaviour so as to live within the constraints of living on one planet? Can we live in balance with the natural world, or will we insist on testing its limits?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right for Parliament to be debating the first annual state of natural capital report, and for the chair of the all-party group for GLOBE UK, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), to be leading the debate in Parliament. GLOBE has shown true leadership, both in the UK and internationally, in getting natural capital on to the agenda, and it is vital that the Government now take a lead. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this welcome debate. Given the way parliamentarians work, it is important that our constituents have an opportunity to have their voice, on how they protect nature, represented here in Parliament. For all those reasons, I value this debate.

As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) pointed out, there is a conundrum. The natural capital committee’s work is a centrepiece of the natural environment White Paper. The extent to which the NCC informs policy is a key test of the White Paper’s ability to truly achieve the step change in how we value nature as a society. As Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, a key issue for me is whether the Treasury is central to that process. I believe that it should be. The right hon. Lady set out how the NCC was established in May 2012 as an independent advisory body to Government, reporting to the economic affairs committee of the Cabinet Office, which is chaired by the Chancellor. In an ideal world, a Treasury Minister would be sitting side by side with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister to answer the debate, because this is a cross-cutting issue. We are intent on drawing to the Government’s attention that it is no good DEFRA having ownership of the agenda; it has to be reflected in each and every Department of Government. This is one challenge that Parliament faces.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree with the direction in which the hon. Lady is going, but does she agree that one of the NCC’s crucial recommendations is the need for changes to the Treasury’s perhaps ironically named green book to allow decisions to take into account natural capital, even where robust valuations are not likely to be available? Does she agree that that is crucial? Unless the green book is amended in that way, with exactly the kind of integration she is talking about, economic and environmental concerns simply will not happen.

[Joan Walley]

As always, the hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. This has been a long-standing matter of concern both to myself and to the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair. It is vital that the mechanism for integrating natural capital values into policy in the UK is reflected in the green book. I understand, as far as the green book is concerned, that a review is currently in progress.