---

Climate Change

3. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 931
 

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department has accepted the assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change as providing the most authoritative picture of climate change. The third assessment report of the IPCC was published in 2001 and has made a most valuable contribution to our understanding of the importance of the issue. The IPCC is undertaking its fourth assessment. The draft reports are currently undergoing peer review and will not be published until 2007.

Tony Lloyd: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's remark that the IPCC produces the most authoritative reports? However, its reports have not been uniformly accepted throughout the world, even though the science that they contain is as good as it can get. We surmise from the leaks of the draft report that my right hon. Friend will have in April that it will be even more dire in its predictions than previous reports, because it will say that there is no upper limit to temperature increases owing to carbon dioxide increases. Does the Minister believe that it will galvanise the whole of the international community, including the United States and countries that opted out of Kyoto, to do something serious about climate change?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of those who question the science has diminished dramatically. That can only be a good thing. The new draft report is still undergoing peer review, so this is a delicate time to comment, but over the past year, not least as a result of the efforts of this Government through our G8 and European Union presidencies, even those who may retain some lingering traces of scepticism have accepted that the risks are such that it is wise for them to address those risks. That is why we are seeing more emphasis on adaptation, and not just on reducing emissions, although the two have to go together. As my hon. Friend will know, following the Gleneagles summit and the establishment of the Gleneagles dialogue, there is now a much greater degree of international dialogue, exchange, communication and so on, drawing in all the major economies of the world. We hope that that will provide us with a way forward.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that an important contribution to addressing the findings of the IPCC would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our power stations by the use of biomass? In that context, could the Secretary of State explain to the House why the value of the renewables obligation certificates now makes it less attractive to use biomass as a co-firing fuel medium in power stations at the very time when research shows that as a biofuel it gives the best return per hectare in carbon dioxide reductions?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is growing awareness of the value and potential of biomass and of biofuels. The value of the renewables obligation certificates and the issues that go with that are part of what the Government are looking at in the energy review. I am sure that, in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment,
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 932
 
Food and Rural Affairs, he will know what other Members may not have fully realised, which is that the European Commission has recently published further observations on the role and importance of biomass and biofuels. There is growing recognition of their potential and a growing will to develop the industries in the European Union.

Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK space industry plays a tremendous role in providing earth-observing platforms? At what level does her Department talk to the UK space industry on global warming and other matters regarding the planet?

Margaret Beckett: I am not sure what direct contacts we have with the industry, but our scientists draw on a wide range of disciplines and information. They are very much in touch with other scientists and have done a huge amount of observational work with them. Not unusually in this field, we have some of the best scientific expertise anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend may know that our climate change scientists are making the fruits of their work more freely available—for example, in the developing world, to aid in adaptation.

Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Although I acknowledge the serious nature of the problems of climate change that face us all, the Secretary of State will remember that the five Opposition parties wrote to her offering to work with her Department and the Government to find a united way to face that challenge. Has she accepted that offer?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I did receive such a letter and I welcomed it, as I have indicated before, because it suggested that all the parties represented in the House accept the science and the targets that the Government have set, which is an important step forward. There are two other things, however. I shall not start ringing bells until I can see that we are in greater agreement about what we should actually do, because there has been a pattern whereby all the concrete actions that the Government have proposed have been one by one opposed by other parties in the House. We have not yet had an opportunity to test whether that has changed. It is a slightly different matter for a Government to engage in dialogue about future policy development than it is for other parties, although I very much hope that their policy decisions are fruitful, and greatly welcome the moves that have been made so far.

Avian Influenza

4. Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): What recent assessment she has made of the efficacy of vaccinating poultry against avian influenza. [57022]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The scientific advice is that the vaccines currently available would not provide the most efficacious way of dealing with a bird flu outbreak. Early identification, containment and eradication are considered the best way of dealing with such an outbreak.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Minister for his courteous reply, but in Newark and Retford many
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 933
 
poultry farmers and breeders have received conflicting advice, from all sorts of different sources, about whether or not they should vaccinate, yet few of them have received any official guidance from DEFRA. As a result there is complete and utter confusion. Can the Government put an end to it, please?

Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry if some of the hon. Gentleman's poultry keepers and breeders feel confused. Without more detail, I do not know who is giving them conflicting advice, but the advice from the Government—from the chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, downwards—has been absolutely clear, and that is, as I said in my initial reply, that the vaccines currently available are not considered the most efficacious way of dealing with a disease outbreak.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Will my hon. Friend clarify the situation in the EU, as there seems to have been a breakdown in the pan-EU approach to avian influenza? Are countries that are vaccinating at present intending to cull later, or do they believe that the vaccinated poultry will be protected?

Mr. Bradshaw: The European Commission has granted limited consent to the Netherlands and France to vaccinate on a pilot basis, in extremely limited circumstances. In the case of France, for example, vaccination is happening in only two of the three regions that applied for it, owing to resistance from the industry and the public. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I expect that both the Netherlands and France hope that a vaccination programme might avoid the need to cull in the event of an outbreak, but our advice is that that scenario is extremely unlikely.

Mr. Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): Local authorities will inevitably have a key role in tackling any outbreak of avian influenza, so what advice are they being given on how they should advise and protect the public, and what resources will be supplied to enable them to carry out that work?

Mr. Bradshaw: Local authority emergency planning departments are intricately involved in all the discussions and preparations across Government, involving not just our Department but the Department of Health, and local authorities will be involved in the forthcoming contingency exercise. They should be well aware of their roles; the information is available and is given to them, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are not quite sure what they should do in the event of an outbreak, he should let me know, because there is no excuse for that.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Further to the Minister's observations about the limited vaccination of poultry in France and the Netherlands, will he tell the House what conditions and limits we shall impose on the trade in vaccinated birds and their products from those two countries?

Mr. Bradshaw: The advice from the Food Standards Agency is that there is no problem with the consumption of birds that have been vaccinated. Of course there are restrictions on importing birds from areas in the
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 934
 
immediate vicinity of the outbreak in south-east France. Trade controls on avian flu are on a regional basis, from which we could benefit, as we did last year when there was a case of Newcastle disease in this country. Exports were restricted from the area concerned, but it would not be sensible, or in accordance with sound veterinary advice, were we to ban exports on a national basis in the case of AI.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): While I much appreciate the limitations of vaccination, particularly in the short term, what education have we received from countries where vaccination has been practised widely? I refer particularly to countries in Asia where vaccination is given to large numbers of birds. Have we anything to learn? Will the Minister put some information in the public domain so that the public may be reassured?

Mr. Bradshaw: The simple answer is that the lessons are mixed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some countries—notably China, where there is a serious problem of endemic AI, both in wild birds and in poultry—have gone down the route of vaccination. Scientific opinion is mixed on whether that is a sensible thing to do. Three other countries in Asia which have not received so much publicity—Malaysia, Japan and South Korea—have all had outbreaks of AI in the past few years. They are all in a region where AI is endemic in wild birds. They have dealt with the problem through containment and eradication. They have not vaccinated. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the evidence is mixed.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): When the first case was confirmed across the channel in France there was great anxiety in the industry in the UK, and even more so because the doom-and-gloom merchants said that cases would arrive on these shores within two or three days. How much contact has my hon. Friend had with his counterparts in the Scottish Executive on this matter?

Mr. Bradshaw: We have worked extremely closely with all of the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend is right to say that although we should not in any circumstances be complacent about AI, the outbreak in Lyon was some weeks ago and there has been no further geographical spread since then. It is still the only outbreak in poultry in the EU. However, there is no room for complacency. We must remain extremely vigilant. We do, as my hon. Friend requests, work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I am afraid that there is much confusion in the country. Only last week the Prime Minister said that vaccination is not effective in stopping the spread of the disease, but experience in Hong Kong—a properly validated scientific exercise—has shown that vaccinated birds do not transmit the disease. It appears that we have a Government policy of no vaccination, yet the Government expect an imminent delivery of Nobilis vaccine for use in zoos. At the same time there is increasing doubt about whether other outdoor birds
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 935
 
could be housed. We do not want a repeat of what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak, when halfway through the disaster the Government began to consider vaccination. Will the Minister now guarantee that the Government's present policy will not change, or must the uncertainty continue?

Mr. Bradshaw: No, that is a ludicrous suggestion; of course we must be flexible. The evidence must be studied and we must take account of changing circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the situation in the poultry industry in Hong Kong is completely different from that in this country, as it is across the channel in the Netherlands. As he has raised what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, I remind him that Sir David King was grossly misrepresented on one broadcast last week about his view of vaccination. It may help the House if I read the brief statement that he issued in response to that. It was that his advice to Government remains

"that the disadvantage of using currently available vaccine significantly outweighs any potential benefits."

---