Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters.

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country.

Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today.

I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy.

Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand, to make him aware of my intervention. He will not be aware—indeed, nobody will be—that my wife has been a volunteer in animal shelters for a great many years, so we have had the cats and dogs that could not be homed living in our home, and they became, as they often do, family members. Does he agree that we must implement strict, legally binding regulations that mandate compassion, force transparency and ensure that destruction is only ever a last medical resort?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention.

Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis.

When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice.

Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven-day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity.

One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground.

The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption.

The Government should also review whether the current seven-day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances.

Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action.

First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased.

Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily.

Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership.

Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts.

Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one-off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip.

I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners.

This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause.

Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost-effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain.

This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

International Day of Education

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who secured this timely debate to coincide with the International Day of Education.

Over my 25 years as a Member of this House, I have been extremely fortunate to travel to all parts of our planet, whether as part of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I served for 15 years; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does excellent work, as we all know; the Inter-Parliamentary Union; the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; or, most especially, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I served as a governor for nine years, doing work in countries around the world. I have also taken part, over the years, in various missions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to countries including Uganda and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will say a bit more about the Chagos islands later.

Through my travels I have seen at first hand the impact of British education, cultural exchange and institutional engagement around the world. I felt it right to participate in this debate because I was due to respond to it on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition as a shadow Minister. Although that is no longer the case, I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will do justice to the role this afternoon, and I wish him well in his endeavours.

Education has the ability to transform lives and, ultimately, it shapes the world in which Britain must operate. For generations, this country has been regarded as the workshop for global leaders, and the world’s elites have wanted to send their children to be educated here in the United Kingdom. That includes post-colonial leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Menzies and Mahatma Gandhi, and contemporary leaders such as the great Tony Abbott and Shinzo Abe. The list goes on—it is very extensive—and we should take great pride in the fact that so many distinguished figures from around the world choose to send their children and families to be educated here in the British Isles.

It is clear that our schools, universities and language, and our great British culture, have projected British influence further than any number of tanks or treaties ever could have done. That influence has been built deliberately through institutions and scholarships that are respected across the globe, including the Rhodes scholarship, the Chevening programme, the work of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the generations of Commonwealth scholars who have gone on to become leaders in politics, business, science and civil society. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, I have seen how thriving these networks of influence truly are.

However, I am afraid that the Commonwealth itself, and bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, have been understood by successive Governments as almost like a hangover of colonial times—something from the past that should belong in history. That attitude is wrong and needs to change. We should be proud of what Britain has achieved over the centuries and we should continue those traditions today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I could not have been here earlier; I was in the Chamber.

I know the focus of the debate is on what Britain does when it comes education, but the other side of it is that many churches across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, have built schools and universities. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the good work done by the churches in my constituency? The Elim church has built a hospital, a health centre, a primary school and a secondary school, and it does work on job training for farming as well. All these things are done by people from Newtownards going to Malawi, to Swaziland and to Zimbabwe. That is an example of what can happen if we all look at some of the good things that are happening.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is about the International Day of Education.

Flags: Public Buildings

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the flying of flags from public buildings.

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for calling me to speak in this debate about the importance of flying flags from public buildings across our United Kingdom. I have studied and campaigned on the subject for many years, even before I entered the House of Commons. In 2000, as a councillor in the London borough of Havering, I campaigned for the Union flag, also correctly known as the Union Jack, to be flown all year round from the main flag mast at our townhall in Romford. It was a great sadness to me that the then Labour council, supported by some members of the Havering residents association, voted against my motion to do so. That led to a public outcry, leading to the eventual backing down of the then administration, which accepted that the people of my borough wanted to see their national flag flown 365 days of the year.

I mounted a similar campaign when I entered Parliament in 2001, calling for our national flag to fly from the Victoria Tower throughout the year. But the tradition then was that it would only fly when Parliament was in session. After nine years of campaigning for this rule to change, I finally managed to persuade the powers that be that it was only right and proper that the Union Jack should fly all year round, during weekends, evenings and recess periods—at all times.

The idea of the flag flying only when the House was sitting originated, so I was told, from when the monarch looked out of their window at Buckingham Palace to see whether the flag was flying and know whether Parliament was in session. When Her Majesty, our dear late Queen Elizabeth II, visited Romford around the time of the golden jubilee, I was proud to sit with her over lunch in the Wykeham Hall of St Edward’s church in Romford market and was able to discuss the matter directly with her. I was surprised to learn that Her late Majesty had never heard of that tradition. She told me that when she wanted to see whether the House was sitting, she would generally switch on BBC Parliament.

After much debate, following that revelation, the Union flag was eventually raised permanently above the Victoria Tower on 6 January 2010, where it has proudly flown every day ever since, for the millions of visitors to London to see and for everyone to take pride in.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which intrigues me. Coming from Northern Ireland, we are a nation of flag fliers; I have flown a flag nearly all my life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only flag that should have pride of place on public buildings is the Union flag? We should take the opportunity to fly it to encourage a sense of national pride, and as a symbol of the things that unite us. We have different colours, creeds, genders, ambitions, qualities and skills, but we are all British, and together we can make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a better place for everyone.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I entirely concur. I commend the hon. Member for his patriotism, his love of country and his understanding of the importance of being proud of being British. Flying the Union flag is an essential part of that.

I refer the House to early-day motion 1199 of 29 March 2010, signed by Mr Speaker himself, which records the significant moment in parliamentary history when the Union flag was raised permanently on the Victoria Tower in the Palace of Westminster. In 2007, I established the all-party parliamentary group on flags, which became the APPG on flags and heraldry, and which now forms a central part of the APPG on British heritage, which I am proud to chair.

Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Havering and Thurrock are neighbouring boroughs, and we are Essex through and through. He is very lucky, because his constituency does not have London-wide policies imposed on it, so it avoids ULEZ and planning interference from the Mayor of London. It is free to make its own decisions—in fact, as a unitary authority. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and we are certainly on the same page on this issue.

We barely see policemen in Romford. They are mostly seconded into inner London areas, and this is compounded by the tri-borough arrangement that merges Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge. We now get even fewer police on the streets of Havering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman? In all the time I have known him, he has always been British to the core—there is absolutely no doubt about that. Although I am a supporter of devolution —many matters are devolved in Northern Ireland— I understand the complexity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that devolution is only as useful as the people in place to carry out the job? Effective people are the key. Does he further agree that devolution must have community support and that, regardless of whether it is in Essex or Strangford, the general public must always have the final say?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right: any type of devolution has to have the consent of the people. I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that the current Greater London devolution arrangement really has the consent of people in Havering. I think that if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would overwhelmingly vote to leave Greater London and be a unitary authority, but maybe there are other options. That is why this debate about Havering borough and Essex devolution is so pertinent today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my arguments.

To return to what I was saying about the police, all but one of our police stations have been closed, and my constituents are deeply unhappy with the lack of police cover we receive, despite the huge amount we contribute financially to the Greater London Authority. This is no fault of the dedicated officers who form the day-to-day, rank-and-file backbone of our local police operation. The local force is dedicated and determined to respond to and prevent instances of criminality that blight the locality, but they are undermined by a lack of the resources that we in Havering pay for, but simply do not receive. Indeed, if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas and, through the Greater London Authority, funding what I believe has become a London-wide bureaucracy in City Hall and associated London-wide quangos. It is hard to see how the people of Havering benefit from that, and more often than not, it has no relevance to local people in my borough whatsoever.

The reason for my Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to please allow us to look at alternatives. Now is the time to consider Havering’s future. With devolution for what is termed Greater Essex now being implemented, this must surely be the right moment to examine a change that would give the people of Romford, Hornchurch, Upminster and Rainham hope that we could be part of something that better suits our local needs and goes with the grain of our historical identity. If the Government truly believe in genuine devolution, I hope the Minister will agree that local people should determine what is best for them, and a borough such as Havering must surely have the freedom to consider all options for our future. I request that the Government open up a meaningful conversation with the people of Havering about devolution for Essex that could include Havering, so that we can look sensibly and in detail at ideas for change.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. The freedom travel pass for pensioners is often cited as one of the benefits of being part of Greater London, as if the Mayor of London provides it to us for free, which is not the case. My borough pays millions to buy in to this scheme. It has always done so and will always continue to do so. We pay millions of pounds for the privilege, but I will always defend and support the freedom pass as our older folk deserve the benefits it gives them.

Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

I respect the hon. Member’s point, but she did say that we should pay what we owe. All kinds of arguments can be put forward about what we owe, but it is a matter of opinion. Today we should bring unity and look for solutions, rather than making this a political issue. We can achieve more for developing countries if we work together, rather than looking at where things have gone wrong or right in history and at who may owe what, depending on what is going on in the world today. I do not think that will get us very far, so we should move on from that and focus on how we restructure the repayment of debt, and how we can develop a better system globally to deal with this issue, rather than looking too far back into history.

It has been clear to me, right from when I stood for Parliament for the first time, that this issue needs to be addressed. That has been confirmed by the passion that hon. Members have shown in today’s debate. Debt relief deserves serious consideration, and the Opposition recognise that. Unsustainable debt burdens can be huge and significant impediments to economic development and growth, trapping nations in a cycle of poverty. However, I believe that we must approach this matter in a responsible way, with both caution and pragmatism.

If pursued, debt relief must be conditional and tied to a strong policy of fiscal responsibility measures, so I hope the Minister will provide assurances that any recipient countries would be expected to implement sound economic policies, tackle corruption and take steps to prevent future over-borrowing. I do not think the Minister can disagree that without those safeguards, we risk creating a system in which there is financial mismanagement in perpetuity. We should focus on rewarding the expense of responsible governance. Making the hard-pressed British taxpayer foot the bill is not acceptable to most of our constituents, and we need solutions. We need to solve these problems and not see this as a one-way street.

If the United Kingdom taxpayer’s money is involved, I want the Government to tell us how they will ensure that such relief also serves the interests of the British people. During these difficult economic times, we must justify every single penny spent by the Government and always be mindful that it is our constituents’ money, not the Government’s. Debt relief must become not an open-ended commitment, but a strategic tool that strengthens bilateral ties and ensures geopolitical stability.

I hope the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to prioritise sustainable development, and what mechanisms are in place to monitor that. I also hope she will agree that the focus should be not on perpetual aid or blanket debt forgiveness, but on fostering economic self-sufficiency. That is the only sustainable way forward. We must also consider how the United Kingdom can play a meaningful part in helping low-income countries to develop their domestic industries, improve resource management and reduce their reliance on foreign debt. Without those structural changes, would debt relief simply serve as a temporary fix, or would she prefer to have a system that offers a sustainable solution? That is what the Opposition want.

[Jim Shannon]

I would never wish to be anything other than supportive of what the hon. Gentleman says, but everyone who has spoken so far has mentioned the charities and groups that contribute and sometimes fill the gap. May I ask, respectfully, if some recognition could be given to those groups?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member touched on this in his speech earlier, as did the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes. That is another new constituency name, and I think it includes Chippenham. Is that part of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

Respiratory Health

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

That will be on the record.

[Jim Shannon]

I will never get it wrong again. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his contribution. Air quality has been a massive issue for him since he came to this House; he has reiterated that over and over again. I am hopeful that he will have the success for which he hopes. He referred to deprivation and low incomes as factors. Priority for respiratory health is needed, as the Minister confirmed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) rightly referred to the need for regular asthma check-ups.

It is always a pleasure to work alongside the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). She and I have talked about this issue over the past five or six years. It was a pleasure to hear her contribution, which included first-hand evidence from her surgery. I agree that we need improved access to diagnostics and medical help.

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for her personal contribution; nothing tells a story better than a personal contribution. As the Minister says, we hope that her family members are able to deal with their issues in a positive fashion, and hopefully the medical care will be there as well. The hon. Lady referred to how the disease drastically changes lives, with some people being unable to walk. She also focused on charity work, which is really important.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to air pollution, as his party has done for many years. He underlined the problems and the impact on children, and he referred to our old housing stock. These are critical issues. We sometimes forget about farmer’s lung, but those who live in the countryside do not, because it is a big issue. He also referred to RSV, the impact on pregnant women and the importance of vaccination.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), reminded us that his first job related to this issue. That has allowed him to make an incredible input into the debate: we thank him for everything that he has put forward. It is fair to say that the last Government had a plan, but a more holistic approach is needed. I thank him for his role on the APPG. Prevention is absolutely the way to go, and data is important. He also mentioned spirometry.

The Minister responded in excellent fashion. I wrote down all the things she said. I thank her for committing to a meeting. I am sure that her colleague the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) will be watching the debate and will respond. She referred to her former job and vocation, in which she had dealings with COPD directly. I am also grateful for the roundtable commitment. The Government have committed to a smoke-free society, on which a Bill is pending: that will be important in preventing lung cancer, especially for children. She also referred to damp in homes, an incredibly important issue that comes up all the time in the main Chamber.

The Minister responded very positively, if I may say so, to all the issues on which we required answers, including vaccinations, energy efficiency and fuel poverty. The respiratory network across the nation deals with COPD and major contributors to respiratory health issues, and the Government are committed to it. Respiratory health and biologics are priorities for the Government. It is not often that we have a debate with so much input from everyone, and yet we have a Minister who answers all the questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered respiratory health.