Pet Theft

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that detailed intervention. He is absolutely right; he makes a fair point about gun dogs.

The number of reported dog thefts was 14% higher in 2016 than it was in 2015. Dogs are stolen to order, to sell, to breed, for ransom and even for use as bait and for dog fighting. The Staffordshire bull terrier remains Britain’s most stolen breed. Dogs are stolen from gardens, houses, kennels, from outside—

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I really commend the hon. Gentleman for leading this debate today. I have owned two Staffordshire bull terriers; sadly, they are no longer with us. The devastation of losing a pet in this way, through being stolen, is horrendous, so does the hon. Gentleman agree not only that the Government need to bring in much stiffer sentences as quickly as possible, but that we need to encourage everyone to scan animals—particularly vets, when an animal is taken to a veterinary surgeon—and we need to ensure that education about this crime is widespread so that people are aware that it is a potential threat? An animal should not just be seen as a piece of property; losing one is really like losing a member of the family.

[Mike Hill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He goes to the heart of the debate on many of those issues. I know that

Dogs are stolen outside shops and from cars, and while they are out exercising, on or off the lead. Nowhere is safe for unattended dogs. Owners of bulldogs, pugs, French bulldogs and chihuahuas, for example, have been stalked on walks. Some have had to fight off an attacker who is trying to snatch their dog, or have later been a victim of a home invasion where the only thing stolen was their dog.

Cats are being increasingly targeted. In 2016, 261 cats were reported as stolen to police forces—an increase of 40% on 2014. However, a 2017 study revealed that 360,000 adults believed their cat had been stolen in the past 12 months. SAMPA believes those figures only scratch the surface, as police forces record this crime differently across the country and theft by finding is never recorded in police figures. Everyone assumes it will not happen to them, but no one is safe from this devastating crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that colleagues now feel enlightened about the teeth situation.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

6. When he plans to publish the findings of his consultation on the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill; and if he will bring forward legislative proposals on five-year sentences for animal cruelty.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Our proposals to enshrine animal sentience in domestic law and to extend mandatory sentences for cruelty to five years received positive responses, and we plan to publish the findings of those consultations soon.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that five-year sentencing for animal cruelty has gained cross-party support from MPs, the animal sector and the public, will he tell us how soon he will announce the details of when sentences can be given to those guilty of such awful crimes?

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of this measure, and for some time I have pressed to have maximum sentences for cruelty extended, particularly for some of the most shocking cases of cruelty. The Government are committed to doing this, we have published how we intend to do it, and as soon as parliamentary time allows we intend to introduce this change.

Puppy Smuggling

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I advise Members that if everyone is to get a chance to speak, they need to restrict their speeches to three to four minutes.

Animals in Peril

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

In September, I read an article in the New Statesman entitled “We Are Heading Towards a World Without Animals”. It was a shocking title for an article perhaps, but one that presents a truly horrific prospect for our world. Perhaps we need to be shocked—shocked into taking deadly seriously what must surely be one of the most profound issues our world faces today.

This powerful article, written by Simon Barnes, considered some of the most deeply concerning statistics, which highlighted the plight of some of our planet’s most gravely endangered species. The article quotes the Living Planet Index, compiled by the Zoological Society of London and the WWF, and warns of a dramatic decline in wild animals by 2020, with 13,000 of the 65,000 species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as being under threat, with 3,000 of those being critically endangered.

For example, African grey parrots have declined in numbers by up to 79% in the past 47 years, lions by 43% in 21 years and giraffes by 40% in 30 years. Possibly the worst of all is the decrease in the number of black rhinos—95% in the past 50 years. Primates are also drastically falling in numbers: a study published in the journal Science Advances revealed that 60% are threatened with extinction, including gorillas and chimpanzees. In the British Isles, we are by no means immune from the decrease in native species, with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reporting the hen harrier being close to extinction in the UK, the turtle dove declining by 93% since the ’70s and the skylark having a population 10% of what it was 30 years ago.

We have also lost 8% of our butterfly species and 3% of the beetle population, and hedgehogs are in huge decline too, with their numbers plummeting to around 1 million, compared to 36 million in the ’50s. As we all know, the red squirrel population continues to dwindle. I could go on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this Adjournment debate and congratulate him on the hard work that he does on all these issues. May I say this to him very gently? Does he not agree that there is an onus on each of us not simply to refrain from harming animals, but to play our part in securing a better environment and habitat for animals? Will he join me in recognising the wonderful conservation work that is done in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the wildfowling clubs and, indeed, the country sports sector as a whole?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree entirely with his comments.

The author of the article does not pull his punches, stating that our planet is going through a significant change, that we are witnessing “right now” the process of widespread extinction and that humans

“seem to have accepted the idea that the loss of wild animals is the sad but acceptable price of progress…The loss of animal species is not seen as a serious matter—when did you last hear a politician talk about the extinction crisis?”

Well, tonight we are proving that assumption to be wrong: in this House of Commons and across the world, we must speak up about this crisis and do so with clarity, ever more loudly and with increasing frequency.

Keynote statistics about marine wildlife are also extremely alarming. The acidity and temperature of the seas are rising, and according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2016 report, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”, 90% of fish stocks across the world are fully exploited, over-exploited or in crisis. With the global human population increasing and the demand for all natural resources sky rocketing, scientists are understandably pessimistic about the future. Rationalising why these significant and deplorable animal population decreases have happened, and how to stop them decreasing further, is now a vital matter that we simply have to address. If we do not, we may suddenly find ourselves in a world with little or no large mammalian wildlife and a fundamentally disturbed nature across land, sea and air. What an empty world that would be. None of us could feel pride in handing it to future generations.

It is important to note that the animals in peril across the world are not just the large, iconic creatures we all love so much. Indeed, the vast majority are not. We all need to study the work of ZSL’s “EDGE of Existence” programme, which prioritises species that are both evolutionary distinct and globally endangered according to the red list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. An example is the Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna. Named in honour of Sir David Attenborough, it was previously believed to be extinct. The EDGE programme uses a scientific approach to allocate limited funding most effectively to unique and special animals that could otherwise be so easily forgotten. If such species are lost, there will be nothing else like them on earth. I hope that the Minister with reassure the House that Her Majesty’s Government regularly consult organisations such as ZSL and IUCN for their expertise and input on environmental policy on worldwide ecosystems.

During my time as an MP, as shadow Animal Welfare Minister between 2007 and 2010, and as chairman of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group since 2010, I have been privileged to work with many wildlife, conservation and animal welfare organisations, especially the ZSL and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and many esteemed environmental organisations devoted to protecting wildlife in all forms. Today, sadly, there is much pessimism about the future. The message from organisations such as the UN, the World Wide Fund for Nature, BIAZA, Fauna & Flora International and many others is clear: we are running out of time and more needs to be done—much more.

The scientific consensus for that point of view is global and extensive. Oregon State University’s “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: a second notice” article argues that humanity needs to be environmentally sustainable, and it has been signed by more than 13,000 scientists from across the world. How many scientists need to speak out before Governments, politicians and people from across the world realise that it is in mankind’s vital interests to ensure that our way of life is sustainable both now and in the future? The time to act is not next year or after the next election or at some point in the future; the time to act is now. For example, we are all aware of the dire threat to the bee population caused by some insecticides. Is it not obvious that we should be acting pre-emptively both on climate change and when the existence of vital ecosystems are threatened, rather than waiting for a real crisis point or, worse, for when it is too late?

Before I talk about the areas where I believe Her Majesty’s Government must do more, I want to mention the recently announced plans to ban the ivory trade in the UK. This ban is of course right, but it is long overdue. I commend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for taking the lead on the issue at long last and acting to halt the decline in the world’s elephant population. However, I fear that it may be seen in future years as too little, too late. The UK has been too slow to realise the enormous implications of the global ivory trade on the populations of large mammalian life, with the saddest statistics of all showing the ongoing collapse of the elephant population.

Around three quarters of a million African and Asian elephants exist in the wild today, but that number has fallen by 144,000 in the past seven years alone. I repeat: 144,000 in seven years. That rapid and seemingly out-of-control collapse is overwhelmingly due to the barbaric practice of poaching. Those numbers are astonishing and, on the face of it, show why the UK Government have done the right thing. However, why did we not act earlier? Of course we cannot turn the clock back, but we can learn from our mistakes and work to prevent a similar lack of foresight in future.

We must act faster to protect and save our wildlife by working with international organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, to do everything possible to crush poachers, to promote job creation in environmental conservation efforts across the world and, most importantly, to strive to rebalance our relationship with the natural world.

 In what has become an increasingly unstable world, I have no doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in working with our allies on maintaining geopolitical stability and preventing humanitarian crises, but, as our world becomes more complicated and harder to govern, my fear is that nature suffers, often taking a lower priority.

Twenty years from now, what will we say if some of the world’s most iconic animals exist only in zoos and ecosystems across the world have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing? How will we explain that to future generations?

We must surely make protecting our environment a key priority and a major destination of our resources. Our political system is designed to introduce, debate and pass legislation incrementally, and in this complicated age of domestic and international politics it is straining to find the time and energy to devote to such a big problem. With animal populations decreasing at such a dramatic rate, and with the global human population increasing by 83 million a year, we may need to be more radical in our approach.

I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to do the following. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs greater resources to place more people on the ground to protect animals and plants in peril across the world. The Department for International Development should also re-evaluate how it allocates money and consider how it might provide more help for anti-poaching efforts and environmental conservation.

The Government should also allocate more time in both the House of Commons and in the other place for debating environmental issues. Given the significance of some of the challenges we are discussing, using more of our time on this matter would not only be appropriate but would gain widespread public approval.

The Government also need to make greater commitments to international conventions and agreements and push for further-reaching targets, especially as we leave the European Union. For instance, will the Government commit to replacing the biodiversity strategy, adopted by the European Union in 2011, with an equal or greater British strategy? The United Kingdom has led the world on these issues in the past, and I have no doubt that the Minister will agree that Britain can and must do so again.

Additionally, the Government need to continue to commit to the UN’s sustainable development goals. Although those goals do not necessarily focus on the protection of wildlife alone, it is beyond question that to ensure wildlife is protected and sustainable, both in the UK and worldwide, we need to counter issues such as poverty, health, education and sustainable cities. On the last of those issues, it is important that in the UK we ensure our cities can be a home for wildlife. We can help people and nature by improving air and river quality, and by expanding the size and improving the health of green spaces in every urban area. In short, we must ensure that future legislation uses every opportunity to promote conservation.

Finally, we must use our international influence to help, persuade and, if necessary, press Governments across the world to be more environmentally sustainable, which I consider to be an appropriate use of British influence and power. We must lead the world by example, educate and persuade, and we must never give in.

I draw my speech to a close by reflecting on the good that can be done when animals and plants in peril are identified and helped. There are teams of scientists, conservationists, zoologists and environmentalists across the world, many underpaid or just volunteers, who are dedicating their lives to helping the environment in all ways. It is right that we in the House pay tribute to what they have done and continue to do in working so hard to study these issues, often with their feet on the ground, to protect and guard our wildlife and natural environment.

Many such examples, I am proud to say, are some of the excellent conservation projects on and around our overseas territories. The UK and its overseas territories combined represent the fifth largest marine estate in the world, and have been at the vanguard of global efforts to increase ocean protection through the blue belt policy to create the largest marine sanctuaries anywhere on the planet. The UK is custodian to a third of the world’s albatrosses, the world’s largest coral atoll and, believe it or not, perhaps more than a quarter of the global population of penguins; 2018 represents the first milestone in this Parliament for the blue belt, with the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands conducting a review of the sustainable-use marine protected area, encompassing more than 1 million sq km of its exclusive economic zone. The Great British oceans coalition, comprised of the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Greenpeace, BLUE, the Marine Conservation Society and the ZSL, is calling for the reclassification of the South Sandwich Islands as a fully protected reserve, highlighting that by safeguarding more than 500,000 sq km of pristine sub-Antarctic habitat, the UK can reaffirm its standing as a global leader by becoming the only nation in the world to create fully protected marine areas in the Indian, Pacific, Atlantic and Southern oceans.

When I learn of such fantastic and ambitious work being conducted in all corners of the planet, with Britain taking the lead, I am reassured. However, it cannot be business as usual. Although we are trying so hard to reverse and heal the damage caused to animal populations and wildlife across the world, it is pointless if we do not stop the cause of the problem. We need to engage ourselves in an enormous effort to guarantee the future of the wild, and the many animals and plants in peril, so that our successors can enjoy the knowledge of there being a wild beyond our shores, within these islands and on our very doorstep, and not find themselves in a world without animals.

In short, we as a civilisation, have to face up to one of the biggest challenges we will ever encounter: rebalancing how we fit within the natural world. As the great pioneer of conservation and founder of Jersey Zoo, Gerald Durrell, stated a generation ago:

“People think that I am just trying to look after nice, fluffy animals. What I am really trying to do is to stop the human race from committing suicide.”

Domestic Ivory Market

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paterson]

In that spirit of co-operation, perhaps we could agree among ourselves that we need to close down the majority of the trade in products from live animals, otherwise we will lose the elephant. Perhaps we could have a near-comprehensive ban, which is not quite what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw wanted.

I ask the Minister whether we could extend the consultation, which still has not started yet. I had a good meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and Lord Hague last week, along with DEFRA and Foreign Office officials. As I understand it, there is a possibility that, because the post-1947 consultation has not yet started, we could extend it deeper. We could look at a complete ban or a rolling 100-year ban, as the United States has done, but sadly, I am convinced that a post-1947 ban is worthless. If it falls down on the so-called fast-track rule—we have already been faffing around for 19 weeks—let us go for a full-blooded consultation on a really meaningful ban that is near-comprehensive and look at what the States has done on 200 grams and de minimis. We will not be destroying ancient bagpipes and pianos and absolutely not destroying wonderful ancient painted panels. We would be stopping the trade, which can be disguised and which allows illegal activity to carry on elsewhere. If we do not do that, we will lag behind and the Chinese will be well ahead of us.

We will be hosting the conference, which I am delighted to say is coming back to London, having been to Botswana and Hanoi, where the Secretary of State made a splendid and resounding statement that she wanted to introduce a ban, but we will still be limping along behind. We have lost the leadership.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him on everything he has done to get the Government to take the matter more seriously. Does he agree that, apart from discussing how we get round the antiquities problem, we need to do a great deal more on the ground using DFID to put funding in to help fight this wicked trade? A lot more could be done immediately to support the fight against the illegal trade in ivory if we used our power as a nation and if we used DFID money to achieve some of that.

[Mr Paterson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had more time, I would talk about the lessons from the wildlife conference, where there was clearly a DFID angle. The three big aims are to reduce demand, improve enforcement—in fairness, lessons from the wildlife conference had a direct impact on operations in northern Kenya the year after—and long-term sustainable economic development. He is absolutely right about that.

To go back to my visit to Kruger, it is near a pretty miserable and poor part of northern Mozambique. It is very easy to spot the rhino horn poaching leaders because they live in smart houses and have smart cars. There is not much economic activity there. When one of these guys gets back over the border with a rhino horn, there is a big celebration. It is absolutely fundamental that we work with Mozambique to bring in sanctions in that country, along with better law enforcement and better judicial arrangements so that there are penalties, which has been done in other countries. We also need to teach them about the value of the animals so that their children and grandchildren will benefit in the long term. The game tourism industry in South Africa and Kenya is advanced and brings in significant income. There is none of that in northern Mozambique, but that is the sort of thing we should be doing.

Living Wage (Farmers)

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate will now resume and will conclude no later than 4.45 pm.

[Gordon Henderson]

As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted, while horticultural businesses employ large numbers of workers, they are in the main low-turnover, small to medium-sized outfits, which leaves them exposed to the impact of the living wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) pointed out, profitability levels in the industry are low and having to pay the living wage will push many producers over the edge and out of business. Unless the Government step in and help farmers, we are likely to see the loss of British-grown produce and an increase in imported food, which would have serious long-term consequences for not only the British economy but our country’s food security.

Farmers also face a couple of other problems. Accommodation provided by an employer can currently be taken into account when calculating the national minimum wage. It is not clear, however, whether that arrangement will continue under the living wage. If it does not, many employers who provide accommodation will face rising wage bills without the benefit of a reduction in the amount that they pay to subsidise that accommodation. It might help if the Minister confirmed whether and how the living wage will differ from the national minimum wage in that respect.

Another problem is that the introduction of the living wage comes at a time when farmers, like other businesses, are facing increased costs from other employment legislation, including pension auto-enrolment and an increase from 1% to 2% in the employer contributions that will come into effect in 2017. Farmers believe that the rise in wages under the living wage will lead to a growth in contributions to auto-enrolment pensions. Assessing a complex, changing workforce and calculating contributions for short periods for seasonal workers who stay with a business for just over the current 12-week postponement period will add to farmers’ costs.

To help British farmers in general, and my local farmers in particular, I want the Government to consider several possible mitigating measures. First, supermarkets could be encouraged to work with farmers to help ensure that they receive a fair price for their produce. Ministers could do that by convening a meeting between the management of our major supermarkets and farmers’ representatives to put together a long-term plan for the industry. Secondly, the exemption from the living wage for workers under-25 could be widened to include seasonal workers. Thirdly, employment allowance could be changed so it is based on individual workers and not a business. Fourthly, we could introduce staged increases for the level of accommodation offset that counts towards an employer’s payment of the national minimum wage and, presumably, the living wage. Fifthly, the cumulative and disproportionate administration burden associated with auto-enrolment duties could be reduced by extending the current three-month postponement period to six months to help capture seasonal workers in the postponement period.

Sixthly, the starting point for national insurance could be aligned with the starting point for income tax. In 2011-12, the class 1 NI threshold was set at almost 95% of the income tax starting threshold. Today, it is just 76%. Finally, the review cycles for the national minimum wage and the living wage could be aligned to reduce complexity. As I asked earlier, will the Minister perhaps confirm whether and how the living wage will differ from the national minimum wage? In addition, will he provide clarity on how the two wage rates will co-exist and whether the various rates can be simplified?

Agriculture and horticulture are important to Britain. They are particularly important to Kent, which, in addition to being the garden of England, just happens to be God’s own county.

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend might know, the deadline of 15 May is written in EU regulations and the Commission has agreed to extend it to 15 June. Under the regulations, farmers are given a period of 21 days during which a late application can be accepted. Until last week it was not clear whether the Commission would agree to an extension, although it had indicated that it might, so our plans were made on the basis that we would be aiming to meet the deadline of 15 May. Having that additional month gives us some more leeway, which is obviously welcome.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the over-complicated CAP system demonstrates that this can affect all member states in a very detrimental way? Is that something that we should be renegotiating as part of our new deal with the European Union?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about the interpretation of existing regulations for next year to ensure that we can get some simplification. In the mid-term review we will be pressing for further simplification of the greening rules. For the new CAP, which will take effect post 2020, we are already looking at radical reform to make it simpler and make more common sense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I shall be happy to look into that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nephrops industry is particularly important in Northern Ireland, and we managed, against the odds, to secure an increase in the total allowable catch at the December Council. That will be good for the Northern Ireland fleet. Different countries take different approaches when it comes to technical measures; that is an important aspect of the devolved entity that we want the common fisheries policy to become.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

In November we published the national pollinator strategy, a 10-year plan to help pollinators to thrive, which involves farmers, major landowners and the public. People can help in their gardens, schools or local parks by leaving areas wild for pollinators, or ensuring that food sources are available throughout the year.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Secretary of State update me on how the 2013 United Kingdom national action plan for sustainable use of pesticides is being reviewed, so that the use of pesticides by local authorities in particular can be reduced?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We will update the action plan by 2017 in line with European Union requirements. Many local authorities are involved in our national pollinator strategy: Bristol, Wyre Forest and Peterborough are all taking measures to plant pollinator-friendly wild flowers.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Yes. We recognise the importance of rural broadband, which is why Broadband Delivery UK has invested hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to rural areas. I know that my hon. Friend was involved in commissioning the Cap D system—the common agricultural policy delivery system—and he will recognise that we have ensured that it can operate at quite low speeds of around 2 megabits per second. That will ensure that most farmers are able to use it, but we have established the network of digital support centres for those who are not.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department’s environmental key performance indicators are met.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The core Department has reduced the size of its core estate to three properties and implemented measures such as LED lighting and improved insulation to reduce energy use. Carbon emissions, the quantity of waste we generate and the amount of water we use have reduced by 39%, 30% and 2% respectively. In the coming year, we are looking to use energy performance contracts to make our buildings more efficient and potentially to introduce renewable generation.

Greyhound Welfare

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), with whom I co-chair the all-party group on greyhounds.

I come from Romford, which is a greyhound racing town. There is a greyhound stadium in my constituency, where I have always lived. Therefore, for me it is very important that we get this issue right. We support greyhound racing, but as the hon. Members for Islwyn and for Wansbeck said, it is important that we uphold the welfare of the animals. I will focus on welfare in my brief remarks today.

The greyhound is, of course, a remarkable athlete. It is one of the oldest canine breeds; it is mentioned in the Bible, in Chaucer and in Shakespeare. Greyhounds have often been owned by members of the royal family.

In the UK, the greyhound industry is thriving, and it is an exciting industry. It not only brings in £55 million in taxation per annum but supports more than 7,000 jobs, which are linked to the 30 or so greyhound racing tracks around the country. Greyhound racing is a traditional British pastime and many people around the UK spend a lot of their life involved in it. It is very important that we do not take it away from them.

Let me state, as chairman of the all-party group on greyhounds, that whatever we feel about greyhound racing, the important thing is that we never forget about the welfare of the 8,000 dogs that enter and leave the sport every year. The sport itself must be supported, but only on the basis that the dogs are properly looked after during their racing days and when they finish racing.

I am pleased that much progress has made by the industry since the introduction of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has maintained the standards that afford it accreditation by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. All racing greyhounds are microchipped and, under the GBGB rules of racing, owners are responsible for their greyhounds when the dogs’ racing days come to an end. In addition, the GBGB conducts a vigorous anti-doping regime, taking more than 9,000 samples a year. Of these, well over 99% are negative.

Charities such as the Retired Greyhound Trust, of which I am a trustee and a proud vice-president, serve to further the welfare of greyhounds when their racing days are over. The RGT is the largest single-breed re-homing charity in Britain and last year it found homes for 3,742 greyhounds. Unfortunately, the RGT and other charities are simply unable to help all the dogs that leave racing, and I welcome any assistance the sport is able to give these charities in that respect. The hon. Member for Islwyn emphasised the importance of that.

However, the recent report into greyhound racing in the UK by the League Against Cruel Sports has raised many concerns. While it is important for the sport to be held to account, it is my opinion that this report does not necessarily represent all the facts as they truly are, and in some cases it uses data that are simply not correct. For instance, the report claims:

“Most racing greyhounds spend 95% of their time confined in a kennel”,

when the truth is that they spend 95% of their time at a kennel, because quite simply that is where they reside and where they have access to paddocks, runs and walks on a daily basis. I do not believe that twisting the facts in that manner helps the debate and we should be careful not to take information at face value, rather than checking whether it is based on fact or just hearsay.

The GBGB is working with the Greyhound Forum to improve transparency on the information about injuries and trackside euthanasia rates, which means that this information is now available to many animal welfare organisations. However, I know that many of these organisations would like to see this transparency increased and for the GBGB to improve outside understanding of the injuries that greyhounds sustain and of the remedies that are used.

It is also regarded as important that the GBGB shares information about the number of greyhounds that retire each year, and about exactly where these dogs go. Perhaps that is one area where the industry could work more closely with the Greyhound Forum.

The greyhound industry and the GBGB are insistent on their commitment to the welfare of the animals with which they work. To retain the public’s support for greyhound racing, and the support of all those who care about the well-being of the animals, I strongly urge the industry and the GBGB to continue along the path of greater transparency.

Dangerous Dogs

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robinson]

I agree. This is pointing towards a consolidation of all previous laws—many of them go back many years; one of the most useful was enacted in 1871—into new, modern statutes to deal with some of the points that are not clear in previous legislation. In addition to dogs attacking defenceless, beautiful animals such as swans, I have even heard of dogs attacking guide dogs. It largely comes back to the owner. We must put in place the sanctions that make it clear we are not going to tolerate this situation any more.

Without rehearsing the whole history of the issue, I shall give hon. Members a flavour of it. Related Acts were introduced in 1839, 1847, 1861 and 1871. This is, therefore, a recurrent theme in society and our pet community. It is no good denying the problem; we must simply do the best we can to minimise it, even if we cannot totally eliminate it. That means introducing sensible, modern legislation. I hope that some Conservative Members have time—as they can probably tell, I am trying to get through my speech as quickly as I can to leave time for others to speak—to join us in supporting such an approach. The consultation has been carried out, and finished in June 2010.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two clear things need to be done? First, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 needs to be got rid of and replaced by sensible, effective legislation; and secondly, we need a workable law that introduces compulsory micro-chipping for all dogs.

[Mr Robinson]

I am coming to that in a moment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman but the point is: why are we not getting on with it? We must face the fact that we need legislation to deal with the problem and, if we all agree on that, we could go one step further and say that it needs to be consolidated. Let us have fresh legislation that takes all recent experience into account. This is not a criticism of the Prime Minister, the Government or the Conservative party, but the consultation was completed a year and a half ago and I cannot think what is holding things up. There is widespread support in the House for dealing with this problem, which exists throughout the country, so let us get on with sorting it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am coming on to that precise point. Ministers have made it a priority to see how this issue is being dealt with on the ground in the communities that are affected. We are keen to learn the lessons of what works—and what does not—from local projects in areas where there is a high incidence of dog-related problems. Our view is that local action is key to tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership. We are keen to support local people, charities, the police and local authorities, so that they can jointly tackle local issues. We are also looking at what more Government can do to support the police, local government and the courts in dealing more effectively with dog problems. We have already facilitated the production of guidance for the police, the courts and the public. We have also provided financial support for the training given by the Association of Chief Police Officers to police dog legislation officers. Ministers are keen that we build on this support in future.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am coming to the point that he raised earlier.

A number of people support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, then owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have the dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I want the police to have the final say on whether a dog is seized, and there may also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner. That idea would undoubtedly save money for the police who, under the existing law, must first seize the dog pending the outcome of court proceedings. However, we also need to consider whether such a proposal would allow for the public safety factor of each application to be properly considered.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), another proposal under consideration is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. That would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property, and we have sympathy with that desire. That may, on the face of it, be an easy thing to do, but we should consider the effects of, say, a trespasser with criminal intent who is attacked by the home owner’s dog. Do we really want a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because the home owner’s dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural? I point that out as just one example of where it is not a simple binary decision. There are some major implications in extending the law into the home. Before going down this route, we would need to be sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed, but I assure the hon. Lady that we get the problem and are very keen to move position, which I think all hon. Members would—