Sustainable Development Goals

Debate between Mary Creagh and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I make no apology for demanding transparency when it comes to where the taxpayer’s money is being spent. There is nothing wrong with working with the private sector. These are funds that were set up by a Labour Government. However, when funds are scaled up so quickly without changes being made to governance and oversight, the National Audit Office—not me—is concerned about where and how the money is being spent.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that the coalition’s record on delivering the 0.7% of GNI is one of which we should be extremely proud, on behalf of the whole country. If our constituents are to have confidence in that spending, we shall need to see the maximum transparency and value for money. Instead of coming up with a litany of criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who I think has done a fantastic job—will the hon. Lady answer these questions? If she ever becomes Secretary of State, how many countries will she identify as an aid target, and what level of sign-off will she prescribe for her Department? How many DFID-run projects has she already visited, and how many projects does she expect to visit if and when she becomes Secretary of State?

[Mary Creagh]

That is very kind. Unlike many Government Members who discovered a new-found interest in development as soon as they were appointed to their roles, I have a long-standing interest in the subject. Let us start with my volunteering for Oxfam in Sri Lanka for two months in 1990. Let us move on to my visit to Rwanda and eastern DRC—

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Perhaps I will break the consensus now. My right hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from the investment in Crossrail and Thameslink, which will improve London’s transportation system. I gently say to him that his might be a slightly London-centric view. I hope that HS2 will be of benefit to every nation, region and sector of our country’s economy.

We welcome the removal of the HS1-HS2 link from the Bill, which would have caused huge disruption to Camden. Removing it will save £700 million from the budget. We also welcome David Higgins’s proposals for a coherent transport plan for the north, which has been historically underfunded, and for proper east-west rail links between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull. Our cities must plan and are planning how to maximise the regeneration and growth opportunities around the stations.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and I have formed the new all-party parliamentary group on integrated transport strategy. We are about to do a piece of work that will show that we can start building phase 2 in the north as well as phase 1. Does the hon. Lady have a view on the sequencing of the building?

[Mary Creagh]

Tempting though it is to offer up my words of complete ignorance on the best way to build a railway, I will leave the matter to Sir David Higgins, who has a bit more experience in the area than me. I would certainly welcome anything that brought the benefits to the midlands and the north quicker, but he is the expert on delivering such large-scale projects.

The transport authorities must prepare to ensure that regional towns and cities reap the benefits of HS2. Railway engineering and advanced construction skills should be a national priority. We want more UK businesses, large and small, to win the large contracts. I hope that in his conclusion the Minister will tell us how he will support cities and businesses to make the most of the scheme.

Badger Cull

Debate between Mary Creagh and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead.

We begin with a question: is culling badgers the most effective way to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis? Labour Members believe that it is not. The consensus among scientists who are not on the Government payroll is also that it is not. They call it a “costly distraction” and a “crazy scheme”, and they urge the Government to change course. Labour Members will be led by those scientists; we were in government and are now in opposition. This is a cull based on hope, not on science. We have warned the Government for two years that the cull will be bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. In government, we were open to the idea. Having asked the question, “Will culling work?” we conducted a 10-year-long, £50 million randomised badger culling trial, which concluded that it will not work. If it will not work, the alternatives, however difficult, must be explored.

I want to begin by explaining why this cull is bad for farmers affected by bovine TB—the biggest animal disease challenge that this country faces. It is bad for farmers because the cull would cost them more than it saves them; bad for farmers because the science does not stack up; and bad for farmers as tourists holiday somewhere else having decided that the sound of gunfire and protest is not conducive to vacation relaxation. I know the toll that this terrible disease takes on farmers and their families personally, emotionally and financially. Controlling it is imperative to protecting farmers’ livelihoods. The European Union requires us to have a national strategy for eradication.

Badgers carry TB. They transmit it to cattle, but the infection also passes among cattle, from cattle to badgers, and among badgers. We know this because during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic, when no testing was carried out on cattle, TB in badgers increased by 70%. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and four scientists from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency say that that was due to a substantial transmission of TB from cattle to badgers. The roots of infection and transmission of the disease are still poorly understood.

This cull is bad for farmers because of the large costs and the small benefits.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has said twice that the cull is bad for farmers. If that is the case, why have they gone to such considerable trouble, expense and risk of adverse publicity in carrying out these culls?

[Mary Creagh]

I understand the desperation that farmers are in. However, the Government have presented culling as the silver bullet—the thing that will stop this disease—and it is not. I will explain why it presents further risks later in my speech. This is not just about the cull; it is about what happens when the cull stops.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend raises a key point. Much of the timber stock that is now ready for felling is being felled by the Forestry Commission, which is replanting it with broadleaf native English oak, ash and beech. If we sell off the timber stock, we lose the chance to change the shape and structure of the forests. Next year, with the sale of 10,000 hectares, this Government will sell more in one year than Labour sold in 13 years in government, and they will do the same for each of the following years. The holdings could include sites in national parks—I hope that Members from Exmoor are listening—community forests, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or sites of special scientific interest.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I hope that the hon. Lady will not seek to mislead either the House or the nation. Does she not accept that we have one of the toughest regulatory regimes in the world? It is not possible to fell a mature tree in this country without a felling licence, and part of the conditions for such a licence is nearly always that a new tree must be planted, and very often a broadleaf tree.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; and who oversees felling licences? It is the Forestry Commission, which the Government are cutting by 25%.