Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

There are a number of threats, as my hon. Friend will know. We are of course concerned about ash, although ash dieback is a disease that takes several years to progress, and we are obviously concerned about larch as well. Across the range of species, we maintain under review all potential threats that are not yet in this country.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I want to press the Minister on the issue of protecting our ancient woodlands. Today’s written ministerial statement talks about planting lots of new trees, but does he accept that that is no replacement for the destruction of ancient trees? The quantity of new trees will not be a substitute for the diversity and quality of such woodland.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that, given the maturity of such ecosystems, ancient woodland has a whole range of things that new planting cannot hope to replicate. That is why the planning guidance is absolutely clear that the hierarchy should protect ancient woodland.

Badger Cull

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate. I, for one, think that he can be very proud of his many years of activism on the animal welfare front.

My hon. Friend quoted Lord Krebs as saying that the “crazy scheme” of badger culling had got “even crazier”. As we have heard, the two pilots carried out in the west country have been a complete shambles, and the worst thing is that that was utterly predictable. The aim of the pilots was to kill 70% of the badger population in the chosen areas, but in Somerset, only 58% had been killed at the end of six weeks, while 64% had been killed at the end of the extended cull period. In Gloucestershire, it was even less successful: 30% had been killed at the end of the six-week period, and 39% had been killed at the end of the 11 weeks and two days after it was extended.

Those figures are based on the figures that the Government came up with after the pilots had already started, when they dramatically revised down the estimates of the number of badgers in the cull areas. Somewhat mysteriously, the number of badgers estimated to be in the Somerset area had fallen from 2,490 to 1,450, and in Gloucestershire, from 3,400 to 2,350. That simply looks like pure guesswork, yet back in October 2012 when the pilots were postponed due to uncertainty over badger numbers, the Secretary of State said:

“It would have been quite wrong to go ahead when it was not confident of reaching the 70% target and could have made the position worse.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 847.]

Why was DEFRA so convinced that it had got the figures right this year, and why did it get them so wrong?

That was not the only time that the Government moved the goalposts. We saw an extension of the time limits to which I have already referred, and we saw a move to cage trapping when shooting proved to be a shambles. As we have heard, extending the culls beyond the original six-week time frame could be very dangerous for farmers. We have heard about perturbation and the fact that if less than 70% of the population is killed, traumatised badgers will be moving out of cull areas. The longer the pilot culls and the shooting are going on, the more likely badgers are to do so, and potentially they could spread TB to surrounding farms that were previously TB-free.

As David Macdonald, chair of Natural England’s science advisory committee and one of the UK’s most eminent wildlife biologists, said at the time of reviewing an extension of the pilots for Gloucestershire:

“Perturbation has undoubtedly been caused in Gloucestershire already and an extension by six to eight weeks is likely to worsen the perturbation even more.”

I also want to talk briefly about the comparative costs of culling versus vaccination. The Somerset badger group’s volunteer-led vaccination programme works with farmers who would prefer to vaccinate badgers on their land. They have vaccinated 140 badgers, which works out at £83 per badger, of which the group charges £25 per badger to the farmer. The group said that if DEFRA is prepared to cage-trap the badgers, it will cover the cost of vaccinating the badgers at a cost to the group of £14.50 each for the vaccine. Is the Minister prepared to consider that offer?

Finally, I pay tribute to the many activists who have protested against the culls and maintained vigils. I met many of them at a demonstration in Bristol a couple of weeks ago. It is quite shocking that people such as the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) described the protesters as “malingerers and scroungers”. I was contacted by a constituent who said that she was deeply upset by that description. She had cared for her husband for five years when he was suffering from dementia. I would also like the Minister to confirm that not one protester has been arrested, and that the Secretary of State’s referring to a small minority who resorted to widespread criminality in their determination to stop this was wrong.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I wish we could go back to the bipartisan approach of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when we got this disease beaten—we got it down to 0.01%. [Interruption.] The chuntering goes on, but we are following the science from Australia, which is TB-free; we are following the science from New Zealand, which is down from 1,763 infected herds to 66; and we are following the science from the Republic of Ireland, where reactors are down from 40,000 to 18,500, and the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier because they are healthy. We will end up with healthy badgers and healthy cattle.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Recent figures from Natural England show that only 60% of farms in the west Somerset cull zone and only 43% of farms in the west Gloucestershire cull zone contained cattle. Why are the Government culling badgers on farms without cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady must understand that badgers move around. When they are “super-excreters” and they move on to cattle farms, they are sadly very effective transmitters of this disease. That is why we are addressing the disease not just in cattle, but in wildlife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is clearly making a case to examine this. There have been a number of reports into our delivery of the broadband programme saying our approach will lower risk and reduce cost to the taxpayer. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns and he would like to write to me, I will be happy to examine them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Proposals were made for 127 marine conservation zones, which it was agreed were necessary to create an ecologically coherent network. It is therefore very disappointing that the Government are going ahead with only 27 zones, and if press reports are correct they will not be consulting on the second tranche until 2015. Why is there such a delay?

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

We have made it clear that there will be two further tranches. I can confirm that next year, we will begin the research work necessary to start identifying some of the next sites. We will launch the formal consultation for the next tranche at the beginning of 2015, but that does not mean we will not be doing work in the meantime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The danger is that unless we get a grip on the disease in high risk areas it will work its way across to other areas—I cited the figures for Oxfordshire in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Our TB strategy is clear about containing the disease in high-risk areas and not letting it spread. We must be emphatic about that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Given that it has so far cost the taxpayers of Somerset and Gloucestershire £4 million, I was rather concerned that the Secretary of State implied that he did not think that policing was of any concern to him. Does he not think that that money would be better spent on a comprehensive badger vaccination programme?

[Mr Paterson]

I think the hon. Lady may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not handle policing; I handle disease in animals. This is a zoonosis, which has to be brought under control. It will take 10 years for a programme agreed with the European Commission to develop a cattle vaccine. Labour Members need to recognise that we cannot sit around as they did, waiting for a new tool to arrive. We have to use the existing tools, which have effectively reduced the disease in other more sensibly run countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is difficult to underestimate what is happening. The International Society for Human Rights, a secular organisation based in Germany, estimates that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. The bishop of the Coptic Church in Egypt, based in London, has said that there is almost ethnic cleansing to eliminate Christianity and Christians in Egypt, so this is an issue to which we must all—the Church of England, the Foreign Office and civil society as a whole—give the highest priority. Whether it is people being murdered in Peshawar or churches being burnt in Baghdad, this is a terrible issue which must be addressed collectively.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the recent report by Amnesty International into the attacks on Coptic Christians and on churches, in Egypt in particular but in the middle east more generally. I echo the request by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for the hon. Gentleman to talk to his colleagues in the Foreign Office and ensure that this issue is an absolute priority for them.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I reiterate what the Archbishop of Canterbury said on the Amnesty International report. Archbishop Justin said that he welcomed

“this timely report from Amnesty International”

and continued:

“Attacks on any community are deplorable and any state has the responsibility to protect its citizens. The appalling attacks in August on the Christian community in Egypt highlight the need for all citizens to be duly protected. Despite the pressure they are under, by the grace of God, Christians in Egypt continue to do all they can to work for the good of the whole of the society of which they are an essential part.”

It is very welcome that organisations such as Amnesty International are drawing attention to what is happening to Christian minorities in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

First, let me congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench; I am sure that he will adorn it with his skills. I think that he is the sixth shadow Minister in opposition to me, and he is very welcome.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The scheme in the Chagos islands is exemplary and we want to see such schemes developed throughout the overseas territories. There are already plans to see proper marine protection around St Helena and a very exciting project in South Georgia. I want to see a necklace of marine protected areas that can be this country’s legacy from our imperial past to the future protection of marine zones.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effects of the final common agricultural policy settlement on the UK’s ability to achieve its environmental objectives and 2020 targets.

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

The new CAP framework through pillar two provides a good basis, with a range of tools to help us, to improve the environment and our biodiversity. Farmers and other land managers already provide a range of environmental benefits. The new arrangements will allow us to enhance the effectiveness of existing schemes and consider new approaches that contribute to our “Biodiversity 2020” quantified outcomes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Secretary of State now make good on his promise of public money for public good and ensure that the new CAP is implemented in the most effective way possible by maximising the transfer of funds from pillar one to pillar two, ensuring a central role for agri-environment schemes and implementing an ambitious approach to the greening of pillar one funding?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to confirm my long-standing belief that we should transfer 15% from pillar one to pillar two. Our pillar two schemes do real good for the environment and 70% of our arable land uses those schemes. We also need to develop new schemes, as 30% of the new pillar one will depend on greening. We also have a guarantee, which we drove through the negotiations, that 30% of the rural development funds will be spent on the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Parish churches have to raise the money for bat litigation at considerable cost to their community, and that can prevent their own mission and ministry. The sums of money can be large. For example, the church of St Hilda’s in Ellerburn in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has spent a total of £29,000 so far, which is a significant sum for a small congregation to finance. As yet, there is no resolution in sight, but I was grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for indicating in a recent debate in Westminster Hall that there might be a prospect of St Hilda’s, Ellerburn at last receiving a licence from Natural England to resolve this issue.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I must say that I rise with some trepidation on this topic, given the explosive response from the Second Church Estates Commissioner to my gentle question in a Westminster Hall debate last week. Since then, I have been told that the Bat Conservation Trust and the Church Buildings Council were having productive conversations on the bats, churches and communities pilot project funded by Natural England until February this year when they stalled. Will the hon. Gentleman use his good offices to bring the two together to continue those conversations?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My concern with the hon. Lady’s approach and the Bat Conservation Trust is that they seem to think that this is an issue that can somehow just be managed. I have to keep on saying to her that this is not an issue that can be managed. Large numbers of churches are being made unusable by large numbers of bats roosting in them. Churches are not field barns; they are places of worship. Following my debate in Westminster Hall, I had a number of letters from clergy up and down the country saying how distressing it was for them, before they could celebrate communion on Sunday, to have to clear bat faeces and bat urine off the altar and the communion table. That is not acceptable.

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

It is probably masochism that brings me here to debate with a room full of farmers. People are well aware of where I come from on this issue, but I hope to convince them that I am speaking not from an emotive perspective, but on the basis of a significant number of reports from eminent experts in the field, which have convinced me of the environmental danger posed by the livestock sector.

In 2009, I introduced a debate in Parliament on the environmental impact of the livestock sector—as I recall, it was just me and the then Labour Minister, who was not particularly impressed. [Interruption.] Actually, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may have been there.

It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) is not here, because he introduced the Sustainable Livestock Bill in Parliament a few years ago as a private Member’s Bill.

[Neil Parish]

When the hon. Lady refers to the dangers of livestock production, is she differentiating between grass-fed livestock on permanent pasture, which is good for the landscape and biodiversity, and other forms of livestock? It is an interesting point, and I would like her to clarify it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will get on to that in a moment. It was one of the first points I was going to make.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is by no means a vegetarian—he enjoys eating meat—but he made a persuasive case at that time for looking at the environmental impact of the livestock sector. It is a shame that he could not be here, because he perhaps has more credibility on these matters than I do in the eyes of the farmers present.

However, let me turn to my first point and respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The problem with today’s debate is that it has, for understandable reasons, focused very much on farming in the UK. I understand that Members are keen to support the industry and the farmers in their constituencies, but that has led to a bit of a distortion, with a focus on grazing and grass-fed livestock, although I entirely agree that their environmental impact is less serious.

I had an interesting meeting with the Campaign to Protect Rural England on Friday and was told how in some areas of Wales the land previously used for sheep grazing was being used to grow blueberries, or given over to forestry, which were both more profitable. I accept that the areas at the top of the hill would not be suitable for that, but the CPRE made the case for alternative uses. Given the price of blueberries in the supermarket, perhaps people would gain from venturing into growing them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have focused on local farming, but I think every one mentioned farming elsewhere in the world, where the impact and the carbon footprint are greater. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that if livestock farming plays a role—and we believe it may—other countries need to do their part? Does she feel that that is something she should focus on?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely support the move, if people are going to eat meat, towards locally-sourced, sustainable, grass-fed cattle. That is far more environmentally friendly, in view of issues such as food miles; and, in the case of organic meat, issues of pesticides and fertilisers are also addressed. I support that. It is not the ideal solution, but it is a lot better.

I had a piece published on the topic in the New Statesman last week; 97% of the world’s soya crop goes to farmed animals. As to the question of how to feed the world without a partly meat-based diet, it is estimated that we could eliminate most of the worst of world hunger with about 40 million tonnes of food, but at the moment nearly 20 times that—760 million tonnes—is fed to animals each year. My article was to an extent a criticism of the Enough Food IF campaign, which is about feeding the world and lobbying the G8 to address global hunger. The campaign criticises the fact that 100 million tonnes of crops go towards biofuels, and says that biofuels are a bad thing; but, as I have said, 760 million tonnes go towards feeding animals and it seems completely silent on that point. That needs to be addressed when we consider the devastation of the rain forest and its environmental impact.

[Bill Wiggin]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the substitution of animal feed for human food, but she must understand that—even if the crop is wheat or soya beans—not all that food would be suitable for human consumption. Therefore, even in the ideal world that she hopes to live in, what she envisages would not mean we could not have animals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I understand the nuanced argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I still think that there is a compelling case, and I want to deal now with some reports.

It seemed to me that during the debate there was a herd of elephants in the room, which hon. Members were not mentioning. No reference was made to other very authoritative reports, which have said there is a serious issue to be addressed. In my 2009 debate, I cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report of 2006, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which makes compelling reading. It concluded:

“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

I will not cite all the figures that I quoted in my debate, because people will be familiar with the fact that it takes 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef.

[Neil Parish]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not think I can take any more interventions, because I suspect the winding-up speeches will begin soon, and I have been generous in giving way.

Raj Patel wrote in “Stuffed and Starved”:

“The amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840 million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million”.

I also cited figures about the water footprint. It takes 100 times as much water to produce 1 kg of beef as it does to grow 1 kg of vegetables. It takes 2.2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant protein. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, if we factor in animal feed, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables; I could go on. That was a 2006 report, but more recently Professor Mark Sutton, the lead author of a UN environment programme study published in February, entitled “Our Nutrient World”, called for people to become what he called demitarians, and eat half as much meat as they do now. He said:

“Unless action is taken increases in pollution and the per capita consumption of energy and animal products will exacerbate nutrient losses, pollution levels and land degradation, further threatening the quality of our water, air and soils, affecting climate and biodiversity”.

In 2009, a report was produced called “How Low Can We Go?”. It was co-authored by the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Food Climate Research Network set up by Dr Tara Garnett, who is now at the university of Oxford. It gave scenarios in which cuts in food system emissions would mean we could reduce the total UK carbon footprint by 20%—that is, make a 70% cut in the UK food carbon footprint, which is currently about 30% of the UK total. It concluded:

“A reduction in consumption of livestock products could play a significant role in any deep and long-term abatement strategy”

to cut greenhouse gas emissions

“from the UK’s food chain.”

Another relevant paper was called “Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture” and was published in The Lancet in December 2009. It was a collaboration between the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University, Canberra, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Food Climate Research Network and the London International Development Centre. I am sure that hon. Members do not need me to tell them that work published in The Lancet is peer-reviewed. I would say that that is a considerably more rigorous process than the all-party group inquiry that we have heard about. The paper concluded:

“Agricultural food production and agriculturally-related change in land use substantially contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide. Four-fifths of agricultural emissions arise from the livestock sector. Although livestock products are a source of some essential nutrients, they provide large amounts of saturated fat, which is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We considered potential strategies for the agricultural sector to meet the target recommended by the UK Committee on Climate Change to reduce UK emissions from the concentrations recorded in 1990 by 80% by 2050, which would require a 50% reduction by 2030. With use of the UK as a case study, we identified that a combination of agricultural technological improvements and a 30% reduction in livestock production would be needed to meet this target”.

The final report I want to mention is “Setting the Table”, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and published by the Sustainable Development Commission in December 2009. It found that eliminating waste, cutting fatty and sugary foods and reducing meat and dairy consumption would make the biggest contribution towards improving health and reducing the environmental impacts of the food system. The SDC’s research found evidence that consuming only fish from sustainable stocks, eating more seasonal food, cutting out bottled water, shopping on foot, and some other things not directly related to the meat industry would contribute towards a more sustainable diet. However, it concluded that the most significant health and environmental benefits were from reducing meat and dairy, cutting food and drink of low nutritional value and reducing food waste.

I appreciate the intention of hon. Members who are present today to defend the UK beef and sheep industry; but I do not think it is helpful, in doing that, to ignore much of the other evidence. We cannot look at the issues in isolation. We should begin by acknowledging that there is a problem, and address that. I am slightly concerned that EBLEX, the organisation for the British beef and sheep industry, supports the all-party group, and is thanked in the report. I also note that Weber Shandwick provides the secretariat for the group, and has been thanked for its help in compiling the report. I do not know quite what clients it has that have led to its interest in the issue, but I think vested interests are clearly at work. I was going to say they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes—I have managed to make an entire speech without sheep or cow-related puns until now; I am not sure that the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will manage that. He already has a twinkle in his eye. I think that there is, to an extent, an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, and I urge Ministers to consider the issue in the round, rather than looking only at the narrow points made in the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

There is a constant store in any land management system. Any landscape feature, if it is not changed, will have a constant store, so there is a zero-sum gain. If the land is ploughed up or a different crop is grown, the equation may change and the position will be different. That is the simple point that I am making.

We want to continue to fund research into improving the sophistication and accuracy of carbon footprinting methods to support the industry and we have engaged actively in the production of internationally agreed standards for carbon footprints. Research under the UK’s agricultural greenhouse gas research and development platform is a £13.5 million initiative which, in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place at the moment, is shared with the devolved Administrations, so it is also relevant to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Its purpose is to improve the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture, and it will also provide underpinning evidence to improve the quality of carbon footprints.

Given the wide variety of production systems and processes in beef and sheep farming, carbon footprinting inevitably becomes part of the marketing mix, but as with other product information, the industry has a responsibility to be transparent about what it has and has not included in the analyses.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) about methane emissions? I believe that 37% of methane emissions are attributable to the livestock sector, but the hon. Gentleman argued that because they come from a natural source they may not be as environmentally damaging as emissions from other sources. My understanding is that emissions are emissions and cause the same harm regardless of where they originate.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady is of course right. A greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas and has an effect on climate change. I do not accept entirely the argument about some being natural and others are not. That is transparently the case, but it is not a distinction that should affect our consideration of emissions. Some processes and activities are more avoidable than others, and some have a societal interest. The hon. Lady’s contention is perfectly respectable and she is entirely consistent in what she says about not using pasture land to produce animals as we do at the moment. However, society generally does not agree with that view. Society in this country generally wants to eat meat and wants the most efficient and effective processes, which is why we provide research support to help the industry to make those processes as beneficial and as least harmful as possible, but that does not mean that people do not want to eat meat. In the same way, people want to move around the country despite the fact that doing so has a demonstrable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thought I made it clear at the beginning that I was concerned primarily about soya and grain production and its impact, rather than grass-fed animals in this country.

[Mr Heath]

I understand. I am not trying to misrepresent the hon. Lady’s point of view. She opened her comments by saying that she was somewhat masochistic in expressing her view in a debate populated largely by people with agricultural interests.

If we can do anything to mitigate effects on agriculture and any other sphere, we should do so. If we can provide help with research and help the industry to help itself in reducing those effects, all the better. We want to put all those factors into the equation with the other undoubted benefits of extensive pasture and the societal changes in parts of the country where other forms of agriculture would be exceedingly difficult, or in areas where there is huge expertise, for example, in beef production. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) prayed in aid his Hereford cattle, and I thought there might be tension between those with Herefords and those with Aberdeen Angus cattle, but that did not arise. Let us join together in saying that this country is blessed with not only some of the best breeds of livestock, but some of the best livestock husbandry anywhere. I am proud of that, and it makes my job that much easier.

My final point is about industry development and supplementary requirements, and responds in part to the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton’s all-party group. Getting development of supplementary requirements under PAS 2050 and product rules under the greenhouse gas protocol product standard will help to bring consistency to carbon footprinting in the beef and sheep sector. EBLEX has taken the lead, and is a very effective levy-funded organisation. It is working on a UK-wide basis, which is relevant to some of the arguments about levy funding in the red meat sector, to produce the best possible advice and support for all producers throughout the United Kingdom, and I support it in that.

My hon. Friend and his all-party group have made some important points about the lack of consistency and the interpretation of the information we have to date. We accept that there is a lack of consistency. We want to improve that and to make the information as useful as possible because that will help the industry to move in the right direction in reducing as far as possible the emissions from agriculture and ensuring that we contribute as much as we can to our overall reduction in greenhouse gas. I hope we all support that. It is a principal feature of Government policy.

Habitats Directive (Bats and Churches)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of bats in churches and the impact of the EU habitats directive. The House will not be surprised that I wish to do so, given my role as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. At the outset, I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned, bats are part of God’s creation. Indeed, there are three specific references to bats in the bible: Leviticus, chapter 11, verse 19; Deuteronomy, chapter 14, verse 18; and Isaiah, chapter 2, verse 20. Bats are part of the interdependence of God’s creation, but the numbers of some bat species in the UK are under pressure, which is why the EU habitats directive applies.

Bats are mammals, and one of the things I remember about mammals from my A-level zoology course is that they can be distinguished from other species by seven characteristics, two of which are that mammals defecate and urinate. The blunt reality is that bat faeces and bat urine have the potential to cause and do cause enormous damage in churches. English parish churches and cathedrals have significant holdings of monumental sculpture that date back to medieval England. Bat urine and faeces are extremely damaging to church monuments, as they are to other important artefacts in churches. Bat urine decays to form dilute ammonia, which is alkaline, chemically aggressive and can cause pitting, staining or etching on porous or polished material. Monumental brasses are particularly affected by the urine. It causes corrosion, evidenced in a disfiguring spotted appearance to the surface, as on the brass at the church at Elsing in Norfolk—one of the finest brasses in England.

Sculptured monuments are also being damaged by bat urine and faeces. The small number of medieval wooden effigies that survive in England are susceptible to damage to the pattern of the surface, which has been built up over centuries. Bat urine can also harm precious original paint and other surface finishes on historic monuments. For example, the church of St Peter ad Vincula at South Newington in my constituency has some very fine—almost unique—medieval wall paintings, which were spared by Thomas Cromwell’s men, but having survived the ravages of the Reformation, these irreplaceable parts of our national heritage are now threatened by bat urine. A build-up of bat faeces on the porous surface of monuments, especially marble and alabaster, is also problematic. The excreta hardens and is then subject to moisture, which is common in churches. Bat faeces can cause marked discolouration and other harm. Of course, it is possible for monuments to be protected to an extent by covering them with sheets of plastic, but that is unsightly, prevents them from being seen and enjoyed by the wider public, and can produce a microclimate that leads to other conservation issues.

Importantly, churches are places of worship; they are not field barns. I fully appreciate that one of the challenges for bats is that some of their natural habitat is threatened, but there has to be a balance. Churches are active community centres; indeed, the Church of England is making every effort to ensure that as many churches as possible can be centres for community use and community life, used throughout the week, not just for a few hours on a Sunday. Churches play host to a wide range of events, such as children’s playgroups and lunch clubs for the elderly, for which a domestic level of hygiene is expected.

Large internal roosts of bats have significant financial and human costs to those who worship in church buildings. The cost of cleaning, bat monitoring, delays to building work and bat mitigation measures are significant and must be funded by weekly church collections, at the expense of the other pressing demands of sustaining the church community and church buildings. The amount of monitoring and mitigation required, before even basic repair works can be undertaken, can act as a disincentive to the ongoing maintenance needed to retain a church building in good condition. Such delays are not only costly, but disheartening for church congregations and communities, who work hard to keep church buildings alive and fit for community use. Many of the churches affected by bat infestation are approaching a situation where their buildings may be unsustainable as places of worship. It is sometimes said that excluding bats from churches will render the bats homeless, but there is every chance that church congregations will find themselves homeless and without a place of worship, with listed buildings left unoccupied. That solution is surely undesirable for both bats and people.

The costs are not insignificant. St Hilda’s, Ellerburn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has so far spent some £29,000 on mitigation repairs. Another typical example is St Andrew’s church in Holme Hale, Norfolk, which was forced to spend £2,600 in a single year on cleaning costs to clear up after its resident bats. The mitigation work associated with church repairs over three years for just one architect—just one architect!—totalled £57,000.

The situation is summed up in a letter sent to me after I had an exchange in the House with my hon. Friend the Minister. I posed the question:

“Do Ministers consider it acceptable that a number of historic English churches are being made unusable as a consequence of bat faeces and that mediaeval wall paintings and other historic monuments are being irretrievably damaged as a consequence of bat urine? Churches are not farm barns. They are places of worship and should be respected as such.”

The Minister responded:

“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and share his intense frustration. I am glad to say that we are moving forward with one church in Yorkshire, where we think we may have found a resolution, and some churches in Norfolk. It cannot have ever been the intention of those who imposed this directive on us to limit the ability of people to worship in a church that has been there for centuries.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 1112.]

That exchange prompted a number of people to get in touch with me, including Mr Thompson from East Keal in Lincolnshire, who wrote:

“My local Church is St Helen’s Church, East Keal, and we like so many Churches have problems with bats. The pews have become damaged and the organ pitted with their urine and droppings. We are lucky in so far as we have a dedicated team who clean the Church weekly. The Church goes back to 1067. Recently we had the Tower blocked to keep the birds out. We however were required to make slots convenient to the bats to come into the Church. Having the bats means any work to be carried out on the roof can only be carried out during a small timescale. We now need a new roof and are trying to get a grant from English Heritage. We are trying to get a toilet and kitchen but in the interests of Health & Safety, we should be looking to have bats removed from the Churches.”

We will all have enormous sympathy with the congregation and the community of East Keal in Lincolnshire who are confronted with those challenges.

What are the policy issues here? Bats are a European protected species under the habitats directive 1994. In most circumstances, it is a criminal offence to disturb bats or to damage or destroy their breeding site or resting place deliberately. The criminal offence in English law, with a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment, is provided by regulation 41(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Natural England has the power to grant a licence, the effect of which is that bats can be deliberately disturbed, or their breeding sites and resting places damaged or destroyed, without its being a criminal office. The existence of such a licence constitutes a defence to the criminal charge. There are four possible grounds on which Natural England can issue a licence. For the purposes of

“preventing serious damage to...property”,

a licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(g). I would have thought that if bats were fouling a church, or otherwise making it, or parts of it, unusable, that would constitute “serious damage” to property.

I cannot see why a licence cannot be issued if it is for the purposes of preserving public health. A licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(e) on such grounds, and if it can be shown that the use of a church, and the public health of the congregation and the general public, have been damaged by bats, it should be possible for Natural England to grant a licence.

There is also provision for granting a licence, if there are

“imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and…of primary importance to the environment”.

In such circumstances a licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(e). I would have thought that being able to use a church as a church, and being able to have churches not only as places of worship but increasingly for use by the wider community, was a matter of overriding public interest and importance. Moreover, as far as the second part of the test is concerned, when one has regard to grade I or grade II* listed churches, the removal of bats will make possible the preservation and enhancement of a listed building, which is of particular importance to the higher grades of such buildings, and to our national heritage.

I appreciate that Natural England cannot grant a licence under regulation 53(2) unless it is satisfied of two further matters. The first is that there is no satisfactory alternative under regulation 53(9)(a), but I cannot see that being a problem. Obliging churches and church congregations and communities to co-exist with bats is plainly not a “satisfactory alternative”.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am finding the debate very interesting. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many churches do co-exist with bats? Is he aware of the work of the Bat Conservation Trust and its national bat helpline, in helping churches to adapt to having a bat population? I appreciate that protecting both historical buildings and a protected species is difficult, but the trust does some good work.

Common Fisheries Policy

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely agree on the wildlife trusts and their firm commitment to marine conservation; I continue to work closely with them. It was very good news on cod stocks. In the Barents sea to the north of our waters, they are going to catch over 1 million tonnes of cod sustainably this year. Cod is increasing in quantity and biomass in UK waters, but it is not yet at the point where it is a sustainable fishery. Two of the three Marine Stewardship Council boxes are ticked—the healthy ecosystem and management—but the stock is not yet quite at that rate. It is on an upwards graph, however, which is to be rejoiced at, and the fishing industry is to be applauded for its role in achieving that, too.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, but I was surprised that he did not mention marine protected areas and I was not entirely reassured by his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) when she pressed him on the issue. Will he tell us how many marine conservation zones will have been designated in UK waters by the time these reforms come into effect next January? Does the Minister agree that, if we are to use these zones to implement some of the proposals in the reforms, we need to be moving towards the 127 end of the scale rather than the 31 that he talks about?

[Richard Benyon]

I think we need to understand what marine conservation zones are about. They are not principally about fish stocks. There are loads of different ways of conserving fisheries, but it has to be an integrated system in our marine environment. There are loads of marine conservation measures—marine protection areas, marine conservation agreements and 300 sites of special scientific interest in the inter-tidal region, for example—and we want to add to them through the excellent Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the implementation of marine conservation zones. At the moment, we have gone out to consultation on 31 and we are about to report on the results of that consultation. We shall make an announcement in the autumn on the number that we are going to designate, and our ambition is to designate more in future years as we can afford them and as the scientific evidence supports them.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The debate about pollinators and pesticides tends to be seen as a debate about bees and the decline of our bee population, but, in fact, more than 250 pollinating insects are threatened with extinction, including more than 50% of all wild bee species. A third of European butterfly species are in decline, with about 10% at risk of extinction. Over the last 70 years two species of bumble bee have become extinct in the United Kingdom, and six of the remaining 24 are listed as endangered.

I was recently told by a constituent who is a county moth recorder for Gloucestershire that, according to “The State of Britain’s Larger Moths 2013”, produced by Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Britain’s moth population has declined seriously in the last 40 years, and more than 60 species have become extinct since 1900.

There are about 400,000 species of flowering plants. While some rely on wind to move pollen and a much smaller number rely on water, the vast majority—about 90%—depend on animals and insects to transfer pollen between flowers. The considerable decline in pollinators to which some of my hon. Friends have referred today poses several risks, but in particular it poses a risk to our food supply. Bees are thought to be responsible for the pollination of about a third of the food eaten by the world’s population. Twenty per cent. of the UK’s cropped area is made up of pollinator-dependent crops, which include most fruit and vegetables.

I must confess that, as became clear when I met representatives of Friends of the Earth to discuss their campaign, I tended to think of bees as flower pollinators, and had not really thought about the food chain. However, almost all blueberries, grapefruits, avocados, cherries, apples, pears, plums, squashes, cucumbers, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and macadamia nuts, along with many other products—I think that cabbages were mentioned—depend on the foraging activities of bees. Moreover, pollination is responsible not just for the quantity of food but for its quality, in terms of both taste and nutrients. Watermelons that are visited more frequently by pollinators tend to have darker fruit with a richer flavour. It is estimated that without bees, the availability of vitamin C could drop by 20%.

The decline in pollinators also poses an economic risk. Their value to the UK Government is conservatively estimated to be £430 million per annum. Unless we halt the decline in British bees and other pollinators, our farmers might have to rely on hand pollination, which could cost farmers £1.8 billion a year in labour and pollen alone. That is increasingly happening in China, causing food prices to rise.

There is also a risk to the environment. Pollinators are important for the quality of our gardens, parks and countryside. Their decline gives us a worrying early warning indication about the health of our environment. Tony Juniper says in his book, “What has nature ever done for us?”:

“While governments would not consider neglecting our spending on power networks and transport infrastructure, the ‘green infrastructure’ was taken for granted.”

He goes on to say:

“We clearly possess the means to keep the world’s pollinator populations strong and robust, if we want to. All we have to do is invest in the many practical and often simple steps that will take us in that direction.”

What are the remedies? I have received hundreds of e-mails from constituents, many of whom are gardeners, witnessing the decline of the bee population. They are also helping to create bee-friendly gardens and habitats to help bees to thrive. Unlike some rural areas, which can be a monoculture in terms of pollination potential, Bristol’s parks, gardens and even buildings are being used as rich sources for flowering plants. Cities have great potential as places for restoring habitats for bees.

The Welsh Assembly is leading the way in taking action. It is currently consulting on its draft “Action Plan for Pollinators for Wales”, published in April. I have been urging the Bristol council member responsible for the environment, communities and equalities to adopt a pollinator action plan for Bristol along the same lines, given the importance of this for the Bristol area. A range of decisions taken by the current mayoral cabinet, from planning issues to management of public spaces, could have an impact on bee numbers. Indeed, local authorities could take proactive action to protect and create habitats for bees and other pollinators.

Bristol is an ideal city to take the lead in reversing bee decline. We have been shortlisted alongside Brussels, Glasgow and Ljubljana to become European green capital for 2015, and we will find out next week whether we have won. We have a well-deserved reputation as the most sustainable city in the UK, with organisations including the Soil Association and the Environment Agency based in the city, and with our growing number of innovative green businesses and community-led initiatives. We were one of the first cities to set up a food policy council, which is driving sustainable food policies for the city, including by increasing the amount of land available for allotments, and Feed Bristol is running its “get growing” garden trail this weekend; the public can visit 27 sites and be inspired to get growing.

I am delighted that a project to plant flower meadows across the city has won the mayor’s genius award for its efforts to transform the urban environment for pollinating insects. This urban pollinators project, led by the university of Bristol and working in partnership with the city council’s “meadow Bristol” project, is planting flower meadows in Bristol’s public parks and at schools, turning them into a haven for pollinating insects, as well as a beautiful display that everyone can enjoy. On 17 June in Bristol there will be a seminar called “bees, blooms and Bristol”, at which Professor Jane Memmott of the university of Bristol and others will be talking about how we can make Bristol even more pollinator-friendly. I hope that when the Government issue their planning practice guidance on biodiversity, which is expected soon, they will work with councils and the Welsh Assembly, giving them the guidance and impetus they need to protect and restore bee-friendly habitats.

Finally, I want to turn to the issue of pesticides. It was remiss of me not to congratulate at the beginning of my speech the Environmental Audit Committee on its work. Scientists have stated conclusively that neonicotinoid pesticides pose unacceptable levels of risk to honey bees. I hope the Government will adopt the Committee’s recommendation that they should rewrite their national pesticides action plan to incentivise farmers to use non-pesticide methods of pest control and set out a route for reducing overall pesticide use. There needs to be a real shift towards more wildlife-friendly farming in the UK.

I was pleased that the Committee investigated the use of pesticides both on agricultural seed and on plants and seeds sold by garden centres. One constituent, a secondary school teacher who has been planting a wild meadow in the school where she works, recently wrote to me when she was appalled to discover that the plants she was buying to attract insects could actually be harming them. I am pleased to learn from the report that many of the UK’s largest gardening retailers, including B&Q, Wickes and Homebase, have voluntarily withdrawn non-professional plant protection products that contain neonicotinoids, but I urge the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation that we should implement a full ban on the sale of neonicotinoids for public domestic use, to help create an urban safe haven for pollinators.

My final point is about the EU vote. As we have heard, the UK Government were one of eight Governments who voted against a ban, but thankfully the vote was carried by a narrow majority and the UK will not be able to opt out. The press has carried reports of intense secret lobbying by British Ministers on behalf of chemical companies in the run-up to the vote. In a letter released to The Observer under freedom of information rules, the Environment Secretary told the chemicals company Syngenta that he was “extremely disappointed” by the proposed ban. He said that

“the UK has been very active”

in opposing it and that

“our efforts will continue and intensify in the coming days”.

We know that the Government said that they opposed the ban because they felt that there was insufficient scientific evidence from field trials to justify one, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government went beyond that in working so closely with chemical companies to oppose this moderate two-year suspension while further tests are carried out.

I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on its report. Out of all the Committees in the House, it has produced some absolutely fascinating reports, such as its report on protecting the Arctic and the report on green investment that is coming up. This has been a very interesting debate.

Badger Cull

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that you are an assiduous reader of Hansard, Mr Speaker, and you probably remember every one of my 600 parliamentary questions on this issue, one of which revealed that, as my hon. Friend suggested, 56% of the traps were tampered with during the Krebs trials and 14% were actually stolen. That is one of the lessons we are learning from the trials—there might be a more efficient and humane manner of removing badgers.

Anyone who has looked closely at this issue will see that a comprehensive cattle testing programme, combined with restrictions on cattle movements, remains the foundation of our policy. Restrictions have been further strengthened over the past year to reduce the chance of disease spreading from cattle. In January, we introduced a new surveillance testing regime and stricter cattle movement controls, which means that we will be testing more cattle annually and working hard to get in front of the disease, to protect those parts of the country where bovine TB is not a major problem. We will continue to maintain the significant effort we have put into enhancing cattle controls and combating cattle-to-cattle transmission.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

Other Members want to get speak, so, if I may, I will push on a bit further.

Vaccination is another tool that we will continue to invest in—we are spending £15.5 million on research and development in this Parliament—one that I know many hon. Members would like to see deployed. Some £43 million has been invested since 1994 in this vital work, to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded. We, too, would like to deploy it more widely, but I am afraid that we are just not there yet in terms of either development or practicality, as has been clearly described in this morning’s Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report.

Oral cattle and badger vaccines will, I hope, prove viable, but they will not be ready to deploy for years, and we cannot wait while the disease puts more livestock farms out of business and threatens the sustainability of the industry. In January, the Minister of State and I met the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, Tonio Borg, to discuss our progress towards a cattle vaccine. He acknowledged that we have done more than any other country to take this work forward, but confirmed that the implementation of a legal and validated cattle vaccine is still at least 10 years away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a west country MP, I can tell the House that there is widespread opposition in the west country, in Gloucestershire and in Somerset to this badger cull going ahead. I have had a huge number of e-mails and I also know that there is a diverse, vocal and determined coalition of groups, ranging from non-governmental organisations and environmental charities to people involved in farming and ordinary members of the public.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will not give way, because I only have six minutes and the hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak.

There has been very vocal opposition and public meetings, and a lot of lobbying. I am sure that the Minister of State, who is the Farming Minister and is also a west country MP, is well aware of that. I invite the Secretary of State to come down to those areas and meet some of the people who have been involved in the campaign so far.

I want to focus on a few issues, the first of which concerns estimating badger populations. As has already been mentioned, the persistent difficulty of knowing how many badgers are in the cull areas has not been satisfactorily resolved and could still make the culls unworkable. We know from the randomised badger culling trial that the only circumstances in which the spread of the disease can be slowed slightly—and even that reduction was only by 16% over nine years—would be if more than 70% of the badgers in an area were eradicated. If the reduction were any less than that, the spread of TB to cattle could increase.

The difficulty of knowing how many badgers there are in an area has been raised many times, including by Lord Krebs and others. Last year, the Government delayed plans to cull badgers as they could not work out how many badgers there were in the cull areas. I understand that according to the Government’s own figures, farmers in Gloucestershire must kill between 2,856 and 2,932 badgers, but according to Professor Rosie Woodroffe at the Zoological Society of London, the estimate of the population ranges much more widely, from 2,657 to 4,079, and there is a 40% chance that the figure for the real population lies outside that range. Professor Woodroffe has concluded that if the real population is below the minimum cull target of 2,856, farmers could kill every badger in the area, breaking the strict condition of the licence that forbids local extinctions while simultaneously failing to kill enough badgers to satisfy the terms of the same licence. The situation is similar in Somerset.

I would be interested to know from the Minister whether the estimates of the number of badgers in the area factor in the number of badgers killed illegally by farmers. A study from the universities of Bangor, Kent and Kingston this year found that approximately one in 10 livestock farmers in Wales had illegally killed a badger within the previous 12 months. In Gloucestershire, there have been press reports of allegations that at the Forthampton estate, an area of 3,000 acres near Tewkesbury that will be one of the main staging points for the cull, badger setts have been illegally filled in. If those allegations prove to be true, the estate may have to withdraw from the cull, which would affect the number of badgers killed and therefore the effectiveness of the cull, as I have explained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) mentioned the humaneness of the killing. The Humane Society International UK recently obtained from a freedom of information request the heavily redacted document that will be used to monitor the humaneness of the badger cull. I would like to take up the concerns voiced by the society. Will the Minister make public how wounded animals that retreat underground will be included in the humaneness assessment? That is not mentioned in the document. The document admits that no shooter will have prior experience of shooting badgers. My office spoke to Pauline Kidner from the Secret World wildlife rescue, which is based in Somerset and has worked with badgers for many years. She said that badgers are not an easy animal to shoot, and when injured will always go back to their sett. So free shooting is likely to result in a slower death as a result of secondary infections and starvation from reduced mobility, and that will prolong the pain and distress suffered by badgers.

As the Secretary of State will be well aware, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has been involved in looking at the bovine TB issue for over 30 years, and in 2011 was the first non-governmental organisation in England to launch a badger vaccination programme on seven of its nature reserves. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made of that vaccination programme so far.

The chief executive of the trust says:

“Bovine TB has had a devastating impact on farmers in Gloucestershire and unfortunately there is no single, cheap or effective fix.”

He goes on to say that the Government have “overlooked” the benefits of a sustained programme of vaccination, and that:

“Vaccinating badgers could play a much larger role in controlling bovine TB while a cattle vaccine is developed and licensed.”

[Anas Sarwar]

Scientific research done by Chambers et al in 2010 showed that adequate vaccination could reduce incidence by up to 73%, whereas a cull would only reduce incidence by between 12% and 16%. So I am not sure that the Government have got the balance right on this.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes. It is a huge difference, and there is a debate to be had about the cost of vaccination, which I think is the Government’s main objection to it. I do not think it is about effectiveness; I think they are cost-driven. In the vaccination programme that is operated in Somerset by Secret World wildlife rescue, the cost of vaccination is much lower because the programme is volunteer-led. I do not know whether the Minister has factored that into his calculations.

The chief executive of Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust says:

“We’re not taking part in the cull on any of our 60 nature reserves in Gloucestershire because we believe the science demonstrates it won’t be very effective in controlling the disease and could even make things worse.”

The Minister does not seem to be listening to what I am saying now, but I—[Interruption.] Well, the Farming Minister is listening; I thank him for his politeness. The Secretary of State does not seem to be paying much attention to me. He needs to come down to Somerset. He needs to come down to Gloucestershire. I would urge him to do it now that the cull has started—not the Farming Minister, the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Well, I would urge him to come again, and talk to people about their concern that people will be roaming their areas with shotguns at night. They are not being told where those people are. They do not know whether they can go camping in areas where they used to go camping. There is real public concern, and real public opposition to the cull. I do not think that the Minister is taking that seriously.