Dermatology Funding

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for ducking in and out of the Chamber. I am trying to make arrangements to meet a couple of people, so I apologise to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and to other Members for not being here for the entirety of his speech.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House for consideration. He expounded the importance of this matter to him personally. For others in and outside the Chamber, it is something that perhaps members of their families have and that they can relate to.

As the hon. Gentleman outlined, there is a need for sufficient funding. When we look at what this involves, we can quickly appreciate the importance of the subject. He referred to the 75% increase in skin cancer in the past year. As an elected representative with a particular interest in health issues—I am my party’s health spokesperson in this place—I have a close relationship with my counterpart and colleague in Northern Ireland, the Health Minister, Edwin Poots. He furnished me with figures that indicate that the increase in Northern Ireland is equal to the figures given earlier, if not just above in many cases. I find that as worrying as the hon. Gentleman did.

I have read the report and it is helpful to read some of the background information. A team from East Anglia recorded data. Some people will say that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Perhaps that is not entirely fair, as they can provide helpful information. The team referred to an 11-year study that showed that basal cell carcinoma increased by 81%. They extrapolated their figures across the whole of the United Kingdom to come up with figures. Whether they are entirely accurate, I do not know, but I think that they do give a feel for the subject and an indication of the number of people who may be affected. The report said that

“around 200,000 patients had 247,000 cases of BCC treated surgically.”

That is just one type of skin cancer, which gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

I want briefly to give some details of what we are doing in Northern Ireland. Again, I do that from a positive frame of mind, because I believe that, if we are doing something, that can be helpful. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) may not have known about the programme that is taking place in the area of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), but if something good is happening, we should exchange those ideas to help each other. That is something that we initiated in relation to dermatology overall as well as skin cancer. In the past year, the Health and Social Care Board invested some £1 million recurrently and another £3 million non-recurrently in dermatology services, including psoriasis drugs. That is for a population in Northern Ireland, as the Minister will know, of 1.8 million, which puts the amount invested into some perspective.

My second son, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough, was born with what I would refer to as scaly skin, or eczema. I have to say that I did not wash him very often, but my wife would always wash him morning and evening up to about the age of six or seven, as well as creaming him twice a day. What was interesting was that eventually the eczema left him, but, as that left him, something else took its place: asthma. That was an unusual reaction, but as the eczema left, the asthma increased, so there is obviously, as the doctor at the time made us aware, a medical connection between the two conditions. The interaction was close and clear.

The Northern Ireland Department of Health has an additional £240,000 of recurrent funding confirmed for dermatology services in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. That is only one of four trusts in Northern Ireland. The board is working with the others to finalise their recurrent funding requirements, which are estimated to be about £500,000. I mention that strategy of working together with the trusts because trusts and councils on the mainland could come together to do something similar to spread the cost.

The debate is about the funding of dermatology in the NHS. We are in difficult times, and everybody acknowledges that finance is not always available in the way it was in the past. We have to make better use of the money we have, and we have to try to do that in a way that delivers services and address all the issues. We have tried to do that in Northern Ireland, and I know the House and the Minister are also trying to make better use of the money that is available.

The Health and Social Care Board has also been working with local GPs to redesign the traditional patient pathway for dermatology assessments. Again, early diagnosis is important, and the figures in the background information for the debate indicate that. Some of the survivors of skin cancer I have spoken to would say the same. Some of those cancers are usually completely curable. One cancer, if caught in the early stages, might need surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, but there is hope when the dreaded “big C”, as many people call it, comes upon us.

Initiatives have also included the funding of a photo-triage pilot. It will, I hope, help the Minister to hear what we have been doing. The pilot scheme will deliver its results in March next year, and it would be helpful if they were made available so the Minister can see what has happened. As part of the pilot, GP practices can refer patients with suspected malignant melanoma or—forgive my Northern Ireland accent—squamous cell carcinoma to a dedicated photographic clinic, which is used to triage the patient, thus reducing unnecessary out-patient attendances. That pilot can shorten the process and focus resources on the issue in hand. If the pilot is successful, as I hope it will be, the figures it produces will be helpful.

I want quickly to comment on sunbeds. Some Members have spoken about them, and others will speak about them as well, including perhaps the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Jim Shannon]

Maybe not—I thought that might be one of the issues she would touch on.

In my previous job as a Northern Ireland Assembly Member and a member of Ards borough council, in my constituency, I had some influence on this issue. The council was concerned about the effects of sunbeds, and it was aware of the importance of controlling, monitoring and regulating them. It took decisions to do that, and other councils took similar initiatives. Again, that shows we have done things in the way they should have been done.

Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough on bringing this important matter to Westminster Hall for consideration. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that my comments about what we do in Northern Ireland have been helpful, and that is particularly true of my comments about the pilot scheme and the way in which triage can work with GPs, hospitals and, more importantly, the patient.

Release of Bodies from Hospital

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

As ever, Mr Hood, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I particularly thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate on a subject that, had it not been brought to my attention by a constituent, I would not have believed possible outside the scripts of comedy or perhaps, more appropriately on the day before Hallowe’en, a horror film. However, the occurrence is possibly far more widespread than is known about, and my constituent fears that it is the modem equivalent of body-snatching by unscrupulous undertakers who, keen to ensure that they are subsequently contracted by bereaved families to organise funerals, take unlawful control of a body.

This situation, which the funeral industry states is rare, and the hospital concerned states arose under unusual circumstances, is none the less one raised by my constituent amidst fears that it was in fact a deliberate attempt to exploit bereaved families in the immediate aftermath of a death, and that it was made possible by a legal grey area and poorly drafted Department of Health guidelines. As a result of my constituent’s case, and after acquainting myself with the guidelines on how bodies are dealt with, I decided to seek this debate to raise two issues. The matter is clearly of limited interest to colleagues, but I welcome the opportunity to make my points direct to the Minister, and I look forward to his response.

First, the existing legislation needs clarification. There is a definite need for guidelines for hospitals and hospice staff to be revised, so that they comply with the existing law, and prevent staff from being exposed to unwarranted prosecution based on the technicalities of existing legal grey areas. Secondly, and probably more importantly, I want to highlight a culture of complicity between undertakers and hospital staff, and potentially deliberate unscrupulous practices deployed by undertakers, who get away with them not in spite of Department of Health guidelines but, worryingly, because of them.

A further point worth raising is Bristol royal infirmary’s failure in its duty of care towards the deceased and her family. On Saturday 23 March this year, Gladys Pugh, the mother-in-law of my constituent, Mr Peter Williams, sadly died in Bristol royal infirmary. Her body was taken to the hospital’s mortuary to await the coroner’s permission for it to be released. The following Tuesday, Mr Williams and his wife began the painful task of contacting undertakers to ask for quotes and to discuss possible funeral arrangements. Three funeral directors were contacted. Mr and Mrs Williams planned to travel to Bristol to register the death and to visit the funeral directors they had contacted, but with the long Easter weekend so close, they could not make the journey until 2 April. The family contacted all the undertakers they had spoken to and informed them they would come back to them if they were interested in taking matters further after the Easter break.

On 2 or 3 of April, one of the undertakers, Thomas Davis, part of Bristol Funeral Directors group and a member of all the relevant trade organisations, including the National Association of Funeral Directors, contacted Mr Williams and asked what was happening about the arrangements. Mr Williams informed them clearly that they had decided to engage the services of another undertaker, thanked them for their interest, and left it at that.

It then transpired that without the permission of the Williams family and without any form of verbal or written contract, Thomas Davis had driven to the hospital’s mortuary on 27 March, the day it was contacted by Mr Williams, and removed Mrs Pugh’s body to one of its own facilities. The situation came to light 10 days after Mrs Pugh’s body had been taken from the mortuary when the company subsequently appointed by my constituent contacted the mortuary to arrange collection of Mrs Pugh’s body, only to be told that it had been taken away some 10 days previously.

There was an understandable feeling of horror, shock and disbelief that Mrs Pugh’s body had been kidnapped by an undertaker whose sole instruction was to offer a quote, which incidentally was never forthcoming, and to inquire about available dates for cremation. I use the word “kidnapped” after considerable thought. First, I cannot use the word “stolen” as a dead body is not technically the property of anyone except the deceased. That is one of the grey areas that legal experts agree needs clarification. Secondly, as kidnapping is the removal of a person without their consent, and as a dead person is still considered a person in law but is unable to give such consent—and, as “stolen” would not be legally correct—“kidnapped” is the only suitable word that I can use to describe what happened.

I argue that Thomas Davis acted unlawfully, because all that had been requested by the Williams family was for a quote to be provided for the services, and for provisional inquiries to be made with a local crematorium. There was no contract, no formal quote, and at no time were the family informed that the body had been collected. Furthermore, at no time was any of the paperwork required under Department of Health hospital guidelines for the release of Mrs Pugh’s body handed over by the family to Thomas Davis.

It is that point—the lack of consent given by the Williams family—that makes the removal of the body unlawful. That is where the first issue arises. Ignoring the motivation for a moment, how can an undertaker take possession of a body from a hospital lawfully? The answer—for it to be lawful, the person in control of the body must be enabled by law, by dint of their status in the life of the deceased or through being appointed the agent of such a person. In the case of Mr Williams’ mother-in-law, the undertakers had not been given the legal right to take control of the body by the family and were therefore not in legal possession of it.

What checks were made by the mortuary staff to ascertain the lawful right of the undertakers to take responsibility for the body? None, it would appear. It seems that the law is at the same time both very clear and utterly confusing on that point, and furthermore, contradicts the Government’s own guidelines. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear with me while I try to explain that.

Although NHS trusts have very strict guidelines on releasing bodies, largely based on the Department of Health’s publication, “Care and Respect in Death: Good Practice Guidance for NHS Mortuary Staff”, and usually stipulate that the person collecting the body must be in possession of the relevant paperwork, often including “the green form”—an interim death certificate releasing the body for disposal—those guidelines are, I am told, probably of no legal effect. In the case of Bristol royal infirmary, its own release note, which Mr Williams was told would be essential for the release of the body, is also possibly not worth the paper it is printed on.

That is because case law dating back to 1841 states that once a person has died, unless the medical staff or the coroner order an autopsy, the deceased person’s body becomes the responsibility of—but not the property of—in the following order: the executor of the will; the next of kin; or, in the absence of the above two, a person or persons intending to pay for and arrange the funeral. Failing that, the local authority must take control. There are, therefore, a limited group of people to whom lawful control of a body can be given, which can also include their appointed representatives. That is the bit of the law that is absolutely crystal clear.

However, what follows is much more confusing. Even where guidelines stipulate which forms must be presented before a body can be released—such as Bristol royal infirmary’s own release form—in fact, once someone who can lawfully take responsibility for a body demands to be allowed to do so, the hospital is apparently powerless to prevent the release of the body, irrespective of trust or Department guidelines, and irrespective of what paperwork the person or persons may or, in this case, may not have.

That is a very important, albeit technical, point, which I wish the Minister to take note of, because if a hospital employee, following the appropriate guidelines, refuses to release the body to someone who can lawfully take control of it, honestly believing that he or she is doing the right thing, that employee can technically open themselves up to prosecution for preventing a burial or cremation—even if that was never the intention and even if they were simply seeking to establish whether the person taking responsibility was legally entitled to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand about this issue. She has outlined technical issues about how the body should have been released and where the process has fallen down. Is she also concerned at the impact that such a situation has on the families at a time of grief and sorrow? No matter what, that cannot be overlooked.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is, of course, exactly correct on that point. It is a time of great grief and distress to families, and they are often not in a position either to know what the legal technicalities are or to ensure that they are properly implemented. I will come on to his specific points very shortly.

According to some legal experts, this grey area has arisen from a number of test cases—including one in 1974—that have apparently established that a person claiming lawful control does not need to provide any paperwork at all to justify their claim over a body. Furthermore, and of great concern, not only are there no stipulations in law regarding what paperwork must be presented, or what conditions met, irrespective of guidelines, it is apparently illegal to demand that anyone seeking lawful control of a body do anything to justify their claim. In other words, unless my understanding is incorrect, not only are trust guidelines of no legal effect, but they can actually put the staff seeking to implement them at a technical risk of prosecution—something that I know will be of concern to my hon. Friend the Minister.

The first issue, therefore, that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider is clearing up the discrepancy between the guidelines that NHS, hospice and care home staff are given and the technical exposure to prosecution that they face if they seek to abide by them. Furthermore, perhaps the law can also, at the same time, be clarified to state what rights the next of kin have over a body, which is something that it does not clearly do at the moment, because, as I said earlier, the body is not technically considered to be the property of anyone.

I turn to the second point that has been highlighted by my constituents. The right of lawful control does not pass to undertakers unless they have been properly contracted and bestowed with the right to take the body. Furthermore, departmental guidelines clearly state that that right must be demonstrated by the production of the relevant paperwork. What we have to ask, therefore, is how did this situation arise and how widespread is the practice?

In accordance with Department of Health guidelines, Bristol royal infirmary operates a system where a body will not be released without staff being presented with one of its own release notes—something that my constituent was very clearly told. However, in this case, no such release note was presented, because the undertaker was never given it. How, then, did the body come to be given to the undertaker? In answer to that, I again draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to his Department’s guidelines, which, like the law, can at best be described as vague.

For example, while the guidelines state that a body must be released to “the correct recipient”, they do not say who that is. The guidelines also say that “standard operating procedures” should be known by all staff through training, and be robustly audited. They clearly state:

“Before a deceased person’s body is released, mortuary staff should check that all necessary documentation is complete”.

Even if that was a legal requirement, which it seems it may not be, in this case there were clearly no checks of the paperwork because none can have been presented. The guidelines go on to state:

“The body of a person who has died may be collected from the mortuary by the family, but is usually released to a representative, most often a funeral director. Mortuaries should therefore ensure that they have good lines of communication and working relationships with local funeral directors.”

Here, the advice is that hospitals need good working relationships with local undertakers. It seems that that advice has been taken far too literally in this case at least, and I fear elsewhere, with the establishment of a very cosy relationship between undertaker and hospital—a relationship where it is deemed that things can be taken on trust, and contrary to guidelines, no checks are required as to the legal right of the undertaker to take control of the body. That is not a good working relationship with clear lines of communication; it is an abuse of trust.

Certainly, what is clear in this case is that Bristol royal infirmary and the undertakers did not act in accordance with the Department’s guidelines and were, in fact, acting like some modern-day Burke and Hare operation. What is abundantly clear is that Bristol royal infirmary’s response to Mr Williams is inadequate. Although some changes to policy have been implemented, those are changes that my constituent calls “minimal”, and there is no guarantee that it will not happen again. As my constituent noted in a letter to the hospital’s chief executive, Mr Woolley:

“The Post Office would appear to take more care in the release of a parcel than the BRI did in the release of a body”.

To say that my constituent is unhappy with the response that he has received from the hospital would be an understatement. He is desperate to see the changes required to prevent other families experiencing the kidnapping of bodies belonging to their loved ones, but feels that the points he has raised with the hospital have simply been ignored, with the hospital blaming a member of staff for not following procedures.

Mr Williams asks two perfectly reasonable questions in his complaint to the hospital. Those questions are, as yet, unanswered. First, why did Thomas Davis arrive at the hospital without the paperwork that the hospital itself says is essential for a body to be released? Secondly, why was the body released without that paperwork? Mr Williams is worried that the answer to both those questions is this: because the undertaker assumed that he would not need the paperwork—an assumption based on past experience of acting in a similar manner. That begs the obvious question: how many other bodies have been taken in that way? It appears that the hospital will not accept responsibility for its failure in its duty of care towards the Williams family, seeming to want to blame individual hospital employees and the funeral industry.

That is another area of concern to Mr Williams, because all that has been received from the funeral industry is a response that is, to say the least, disappointing, stating only that “these mistakes sometimes happen” and offering nothing beyond that. My constituent has rightly complained to the health service ombudsman, and we await with interest the decision on that complaint, but there is no redress against the undertakers who took the body of my constituent’s mother-in-law, held it unlawfully and refused to take responsibility for doing so, knowing that they are virtually free of any legal consequences for their unlawful behaviour.

I hope that, in his response, the Minister will touch on both aspects of this sorry tale: the lack of legal clarity, rights and protection that both relatives and NHS staff have; and measures designed to prevent undertakers from seeing distressed and grieving families as representing a lucrative opportunity provided that they can first kidnap the body by relying on the cosy relationship that they might enjoy with the local hospital, which the Department’s own guidelines encourage.

From grave robbery to daylight robbery, the funeral industry has questions to answer, as, having spoken to campaigners in preparation for this debate, I can tell the Minister that, despite the comments of the industry, this practice is said to be far more widespread than is believed or acknowledged. Sadly, I am told that people rarely complain, because they simply want to grieve and move on, and the funeral industry is rarely held to account.

I suspect that neither the Department nor the funeral industry keeps figures on how often this practice happens. It would be interesting to know whether the Department has some figures. However, my constituent fears that his experience is merely the tip of the iceberg—a view shared by campaigners in this area. I hope that now that this issue has been highlighted, the Department will seriously consider bringing clarity to what the legislation says and will offer protection to NHS, hospice and care home employees and to grieving families, protecting them from undertakers who should be there to offer a service at the time of greatest need and ensuring that bereavement and grief are not exploited.

Cruise Market (Competition)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are not just talking about £21 million of public money, but future moneys, including the £10 million he mentioned, for a permanent turnaround facility that, in my view and that of several other hon. Members across the country, will have a permanent distortion on the cruise market.

To relate some of the history, as the Minister is well aware, the city of Liverpool cruise terminal was built using £19 million of public money on the explicit condition that it would not compete with other ports that had invested their own money to build similar facilities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Chamber. We all have constituencies where cruise ships bring benefits. People come to Belfast and then go by bus to enjoy the scenery and history of the Strangford area. Does the hon. Lady feel that we need—perhaps the Minister will drive it—a UK or Great Britain strategy that involves all regions to ensure that competition is fair and that we all gain advantage from cruise ships?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course, the existing port strategy makes a very clear point about the need for fair competition and a level playing field.

When talking about ports that have invested their own money, I could mention Southampton again, but there are many other examples, such as the port of Tyne, where investment worth £100 million has been put in over the past 10 years, and Harwich, where there has been significant investment since 1998, when it joined the Hutchison Port Holdings Group. Throughout the country, as evidenced by hon. Members today, large private investment has been put into both freight and passenger-focused ports.

Renewable Energy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

Indeed; my hon. Friend is correct.

I should like to explore a number of issues facing the development of the renewable energy from waste industry outside the large industrial-scale plants that I have mentioned. I want to show how the current incentives are working and how we could adjust them to accelerate awareness and the development of the industry, particularly harnessing the potential for small-scale production, as well as production on an industrial scale.

I have called this debate because incentivising small-scale production could develop valuable employment opportunities, help small businesses and local communities generate their own green energy, grow UK exports and, most importantly, assist the Government to achieve secure, diverse and green energy.

As a country, we continue to produce too much waste and we need to promote better uses for our unwanted produce. Producing more energy from waste is therefore a win-win policy, but it needs to be carefully explained to the general public, as the subject is easy to misunderstand, especially when anaerobic digestion is not well communicated.

Anaerobic digestion is the process whereby biowaste from plant and animal material is converted by micro-organisms in the absence of air into biogas, which can in turn be used to generate green electricity and heat. Anaerobic digestion can help reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions—two essential goals in our fight against climate change. Almost any biowaste can be processed in that way, including food waste, energy-producing crops and crop residues, slurry and manure. The process can accept waste from our homes, supermarkets, industry and farms, ensuring that significantly less is sent to landfill.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important matter to Westminster Hall. Does she feel that, to incentivise the use of waste material from farms, for example, the Government need to consider financial incentives, because although every farmer would wish to do that, financial restrictions might prevent them from doing so?

[Caroline Nokes]

Not just financial incentives are needed; deregulation and, in some instances, making the planning process a lot simpler for agricultural enterprises are needed, too.

The National Farmers Union is a vociferous advocate of anaerobic digestion and argues that its use on farms reduces emissions of methane from manures and agricultural residues, improves air quality through the control and reduction of odours, such as ammonia, and leads to benefits to water quality from the improved management of nitrogen and other nutrients present in manures.

Another major advantage of anaerobic digestion as a renewable energy source is that the material left over at the end of the process—an odour-free digestate, rich in nutrients—can be used effectively as fertiliser. This could, and really should, become the standard fertiliser on the market. However, many domestic and business users do not understand the benefits derived from buying recycled products. A new petrochemical-derived fertiliser can cost a farmer between £200 and £400 per tonne, but the by-product from a micro-anaerobic digestion site is more likely to be of a consistent chemical and nutritional specification. Currently, the anaerobic digestion industry is struggling to sell recycled fertiliser, produced to resource action programme standards, at £5 to £6 per tonne. I would be grateful to the Minister if he expanded on how we can best explain the benefits of, and incentivise the consumption of, recycled fertiliser in farming and domestic gardening.

Many sites in the UK are producing biowaste. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the UK produces approximately 7 million tonnes of food waste and about 90 million tonnes of animal slurry and manure per year. With 23.6 million households and 41,000 farms, it is clear that the potential for green energy production is enormous.

The UK currently has 214 anaerobic digestion plants installed, of which 146 are sewage treatment sites. In comparison, Germany has approximately 9,000 farm-based sites and China has a simple, rural, domestic-scale approach to anaerobic digestion, which benefits millions of people. It is clear that the UK has far greater potential to make use of this technology. In light of Germany’s achievements in this field, the NFU’s commendable vision for 1,000 on-farm anaerobic digestion plants by 2020 seems quite modest.

There are almost unlimited possibilities for anaerobic digestion on a local scale. In my constituency, the patented technology of an innovative micro-anaerobic digestion technology provider, SEaB Energy, based on Southampton university science park, has produced a system that creates and generates power from waste inside a shipping container. Using that technology, the company has proved, both at the university science park and, locally, at Sparsholt agricultural college, that it is possible to implement micro-anaerobic digestion solutions. A number of other food producers, golf clubs and hotels are also exploring the benefits of using such technology across the UK.

All organisations create waste. SeAB is leading the way, through anaerobic digestion, in reducing our dependence on landfill by converting waste into valuable energy. I should welcome the Minister’s visiting and meeting the people who have developed this world-leading technology, so that he can see green energy in production.

There are several different options for anaerobic digestion, depending on the amount of energy required, and each has its own challenges. A centralised anaerobic digestion facility requires large quantities of biowaste to be collected and driven across the country, inevitably generating a strain on the existing road network and increasing the carbon footprint of the technology. It is also capital intensive, and the site-planning process can be lengthy.

By comparison, decentralised sites are arguably simpler to operate, quicker to build and easier to install and manage. Road haulage is largely eliminated and the waste producer benefits directly from using its own waste to generate its own green energy. I would be grateful to the Minister if he commented on how we can incentivise the many small waste producers, such as farmers, food growers, food packers, hotels, hospitals, schools or prisons—the list is almost endless—so that they can benefit from green energy throughout the country. In short, anaerobic digestion reduces the need for landfill, with the exciting possibility of creating sustainable communities with a consistent waste fuel power source.

The NFU is keen to ensure that smaller, farm-based biogas proposals are not disadvantaged by being labelled waste management. If we are to see the necessary growth in on-farm anaerobic digestion plants, it is important that they are subject to simple permits. I will be pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on that and on what work can be done with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that light-touch regulation is encouraged among local planning authorities.

It is important to note that there is tremendous potential for the upgrading of biogas to biomethane for motor vehicle use as a tradeable low-carbon fuel or for direct injection into the natural gas distribution network. I understand that equipment for biogas upgrading is available from Germany, where such pipeline injection is growing, and in our constant search for fresh sources of car fuel, that is an extremely encouraging possibility.

Other sources of renewable fuel can be found in the waste stream, such as the conversion of used cooking oil into biodiesel, which is entirely sustainable and derived from a waste product. That would involve recycling almost 100 million litres of waste cooking oil each year, while helping the Government to exceed their greenhouse gas emission targets in transport by 8%. However, as highlighted by the recent report on environmental taxes by the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, the removal this March of the 20p per litre duty differential on such fuel will make it prohibitively expensive and high-blend users will have no choice but to return to fossil fuels. That will have a disastrous impact on the UK biodiesel industry, resulting in the loss of green jobs, as well as discouraging further investment in the development of new technologies in the energy-from-waste sector.

Park Homes

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The good park home site owners are unfairly gaining a poor reputation because of their less scrupulous counterparts, many of whom are reported to be not only dishonest in their dealings with park home owners but aggressive and abusive. It is sad that only a third of residents felt that their park owner was good. That clearly needs to change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I represent an area containing a significant number of park home owners, with some 300 in one location. They are a very active group, with an active residents association, and have worked with elected representatives to help effect legislative change in Northern Ireland. Is the hon. Lady aware of that and, if not, perhaps the Minister will examine and investigate it to help in today’s study of the subject?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. One of our problems is the lack of a level playing field or of consistency in the different parts of the UK, which can lead to a measure of resentment when some residents see other parts of the UK treated differently from them.

Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is right. DNA testing to determine the type of dog is much easier now than it was when the legislation was introduced. It is interesting that, in the past week, the Government have acknowledged the dreadful stress placed on dogs in quarantine and have announced a relaxation of those time limits, yet some dogs whose breed type is under question end up kennelled for several years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In our previous jobs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I were members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly and were involved in legislative change in relation to dangerous dogs in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful for the Minister and his Department to make direct contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to gauge the lessons that we learned about important legislative changes?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Progress towards legislative change has been made not only in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland. Such progress has, sadly, been lacking here.

Any legislation must be evidence based, proportionate and, importantly, best debated and drafted away from the perfectly understandable reaction that is always to the fore when there has been a dreadful attack. I do not seek to undermine the importance of and need for legislation to protect the public from dogs that are a danger, that have been trained and encouraged to be aggressive, and that, in increasing instances, are used as a weapon. That is why I welcome several of the components of Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill, which was introduced in the other place and is currently on Third Reading. It aims to consolidate existing legislation, give greater flexibility and discretion to enforcers and the courts, include a genuine preventive effect, improve public safety and animal welfare and reduce the costs of enforcement.

At present, enforcers have to wait for an incident to occur before they can step in and deal with the animal. As we have heard, there is a lack of consistent enforcement, but if police have a dog of a banned type drawn to their attention, they must act, whether that dog has done anything aggressive or not.