---

Cormorant Predation

5. Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): What plans the Government have to allow fishery owners and angling clubs to protect inland waterways from the effects of cormorant predation. [174403]
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1084
 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), I am actively considering extra measures that could help fishery owners and angling clubs to deal with the increasing problem of predation by cormorants.

Mr. Salter: I thank the Minister for his reply, which will be welcomed by the 3.5 million anglers in this country. He is well aware of the serious environmental damage being caused to many inland fisheries in Britain as a result of the massive increase in cormorant numbers in the past 10 years. He is also aware that many European countries are relaxing their rules and granting themselves derogation from the EU birds directive. Is it not about time that Britain followed suit?

Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure that we would be prepared to go that far. If my hon. Friend studies the experience of France, which has granted such derogation and has killed many cormorants, he will see that the evidence of a beneficial effect is at best patchy. I accept the concern that he expresses on anglers' behalf that serious localised problems exist, particularly in some of our inland fisheries, and I will re-examine this issue to see whether more can be done.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The Government have a declared policy of equal rights, yet the hon. Gentleman's Department is here defending and promoting the interests of those who like dragging fish around in the water and pulling them out by sharp hooks before putting them back, while at the same time wishing to ban hunting with dogs. What are the Government and his Department doing to stamp out hypocrisy on these issues, both inside and outside this House?

Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure what that has to do with cormorants, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: any Government have to strike a balance between the rights of fish and the rights of cormorants, and we are indeed trying to strike that balance.

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham) (Lab): Why has there been such a large increase in the cormorant population?

Mr. Bradshaw: As with many of these very interesting questions, there is no conclusive scientific evidence, but one reason might well be that because our streams and rivers are cleaner than they have been for generations—thanks to the environmental improvements undertaken by this Government—fish populations in inland waterways are much higher, and cormorants that used not to live inland have migrated there in recent years.

State Veterinary Service

6. Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): If she will make a statement on the future of the state veterinary service. [174404]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government believe that the state
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1085
 
veterinary service should become an Executive agency from 1 April 2005. A consultation exercise will be launched soon.

Mr. Williams : I thank the Minister for that reply. The announcement was made last October, and it seems that the Minister has already made his mind up, given that the advertisement for the post of chief executive of the next steps executive agency has already appeared. Surely the Minister should have consulted first. Has he consulted the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union or—in particular, so far as I am concerned—the National Assembly for Wales?

Mr. Bradshaw: We have had discussions with those bodies. Indeed, the former president of the British Veterinary Association said on the wireless this morning—on the "Farming Today" programme—that in his view the separation of delivery and policy was a good idea. However, we have not made up our minds. This is a genuine consultation process, and if the results are overwhelmingly hostile we will think again. The advertisement had to be placed then in view of the need to stick to the deadline and of the time it will take to appoint somebody. No firm decisions have been taken, which is why full consultation will take place.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): Is the state veterinary service sufficiently organised to cope with the annual 20 per cent. increase in bovine tuberculosis predicted by the Government?

Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, it is, and the hon. Gentleman might be interested in the following figures. Currently, there are the equivalent of 1,445 full-time members of staff in the state veterinary service, compared with only 1,100 in 1995—a 31 per cent. increase since the Conservatives were in government. Moreover, the amount spent on the state veterinary service increased in the same period by 60 per cent.

Large Combustion Plant Directive

7. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): If she will make a statement on how she intends to implement the large combustion plant directive. [174408]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have yet to make a final decision on the mode of implementation of the revised large combustion plant directive. We will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Paddy Tipping : Will the Minister confirm and publish the Mott MacDonald study commissioned by his Department, and will he confirm that his noble and ministerial Friend Lord Whitty visited one of the midlands pits only a few days ago? In the light of both those events, is it not true that if a national plan approach were taken half the coal collieries in this country would close within the next five to six years?

Mr. Morley: It is true that if the national plan approach were implemented in its currently discussed format, it would have an impact on the coal sector. There are no two ways about that. Similarly, if the
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1086
 
alternative approach on emission limits were put in place, that would also have an impact on manufacturing. It is a complicated issue, as my hon. Friend knows. We want to put as much information as possible in the public domain. Our objective is to meet desirable environmental standards, but to do so with the minimal impact on the relevant sectors. That is what we are currently trying to do.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): As the Minister rightly says, this is a complicated issue. He would accept that existing plants are in danger of breaking all the Government's emission targets. When will the Government make an announcement to confirm that existing plants will be included as part of the national plan, and what will be the costs to the industry of meeting the regulatory impact goals?

Mr. Morley: On the latter point, some figures have been made available on the costs of the regulatory impact, but we need to be aware that there are also health benefits to wider society from lower emissions. That reduces costs on the NHS, for example, so there are positives and negatives to the approach. I repeat that we want implementation to produce environmental gain with the minimum impact on the sectors concerned. That could mean some delay as we assess the various models and talk to the different sectors about implementation. I believe that it is better to have some delay in order to get it right and minimise the impact.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton) (Lab): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) in appealing to the Minister to have regard to the impact of the national plan on the electricity generating industry and the coal industry. I accept that the aluminium industry, with its single unit, has to be taken into account. Will the Minister impress on the European Commission the need for some variation in the application of the plan, which is what the French are doing in their submission to the EEC by seeking to variate in order to protect their businesses and industries?

Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that we examining the French proposals, but he will be aware that there are complexities surrounding legal interpretation. I repeat my general point. In respect of the Commission, there should be elements of flexibility in the regulations that are designed to bring about the desirable environmental outcomes. We want those outcomes to be achieved in a way that recognises the impacts on industry and does not have a disproportionate effect. We want the outcomes, but with the minimal effect in respect of the economic impact.

---