European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Angela Smith and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

I wish to speak briefly, as chair of the all-party group on the chemical industries, to new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I am not going to rehearse the arguments that she has already made; she gave an incredibly strong account of why we should stay within REACH. It suffices only to say that the chemicals industry does not want to see any drop in regulatory standards. It wants to stay within REACH, for obvious reasons, not least because it wants a smooth transition post-Brexit, and staying within REACH makes sense in that regard. When an industry as big and as important to our export profile as chemicals is so vociferous in its argument that it wants to stay within REACH, this House and every Member of this House should take notice and think very carefully about how they proceed on that point.

The remaining comments I want to make are on new clause 13. It really saddens me to say this, but I am very sad to see those on my own Front Bench making an argument about new clause 13 that I believe to be erroneous. Their argument tonight has been—on paper, if not on the Floor of the House—that the clause actually ties us into the customs union. Nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) made it absolutely clear that this clause is about making sure that the option of staying in the customs union is not taken off the table.

I shall not go into all the various arguments that have been made, because we have not got time, but I do want to ask every Member of this House, particularly my colleagues, to bear in mind the importance of not ruling out membership of the customs union. Voting for the new clause tonight will be an act of conscience that will send a powerful signal to the country and the Government that we understand the importance, potentially, of the customs union and the importance of giving the Government the strongest possible negotiating position when it comes to that regulatory alignment that we have heard so much about in recent days.

On Ireland—I will finish on this point—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East made the case about avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and made the point that that is one of the key reasons why this new clause, and the potential for staying in the customs union, is so important.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have hardly any time left. Ireland was debated last week.

[Angela Smith]

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said that Ireland raised the point about the customs union and the hard border. That is why it is relevant to this clause. It is about trade between those two countries—the UK and the Republic. The point is that it is also about avoiding the hard border in relation to our other, very important, relationships with Ireland.

I ask every Member of this House to bear in mind the emotional and powerful speech made last week by our hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is really important that we remember those days when the hard border between the two countries, and the troubles, delivered so much devastation, hatred and agony to the people of Northern Ireland. On those grounds alone, I ask people to support new clause 13 tonight, and I ask Members on the Opposition Benches, including Members of my own party, to support the new clause, because to do so is in the interests of the country and in the interests particularly of our friends in Northern Ireland.

Badger Cull

Debate between Angela Smith and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

The reactive culling in the RBCT did fail. That is not the point. I am talking about proactive culling, which is best carried out over eight to 11 days. Reactive culling is when one kills the badgers in a small area—a hot spot—and does not go back again. The proactive culling is done over a bigger area—that is the important point—annually. It is a much more scientific approach to culling. Reactive culling does not work at all; in fact, it makes the problem a lot worse.

The 70% figure, which is an average, is based on proactive culling. It was demonstrated in the RBCT that it did deliver reductions in cattle TB incidence in the culling zone on a gradual basis. There was, however, a rapid but diminishing increase outside the zone. That is where the 16% figure in the RBCT report comes from. It is often not reported, however, that the 16% figure was based on a scenario that was more optimistic about the potential beneficial impact of culling overall. In fact, the average reduction over nine years was 12%. That is why the Independent Study Group on Cattle TB said that culling could not deliver any meaningful reduction in bovine TB. That is the key point.

Reactive culling reduced badger density by 30% and elevated cattle TB; that is the point that I was making earlier. The problem is that it is not known scientifically where between 30% and 70% removal an effect on TB is achieved, hence the importance of the 70% target. Scientifically, it is the only target that one can use to measure effectiveness.

In summary, the requirement to kill at least 70% of local badgers within six weeks was not an arbitrary target. It was a scientifically driven target. As I have said, the six-week target was set because prolonged culling over more than 12 nights further elevates TB in badgers and is expected to undermine any benefits for cattle TB control. In terms of both the length of the culling period and the targets for numbers killed, the pilot culls failed comprehensively. That prompts questions about the future of culling. If we are to go ahead with more culling, Ministers have to answer this key point: killing effectively, over less than six weeks, will require far more marksmen and far greater resources, so that we can do the work simultaneously. One of the key lessons to be learned from the pilot culls is that we would need much greater resources to do the job, and I am not convinced that taxpayers are prepared to pay for that kind of resource.

It was found in the end that the pilot culling had to make use of cage trapping in addition to free-shooting. That points to the need for much greater resources. If we include policing in the costs, we are looking at more than £4,000 per badger shot in the pilot culls. On the alternative, vaccination costs £2,250 per square kilometre covered. When looking at cage trapping, and whether to vaccinate or cull, we have to remember that vaccination is much cheaper, partly because policing costs are removed from the equation, but also because with vaccination there is no need to dispose of the carcases of badgers culled. We all know that there is a massive army of volunteers ready to help the Government conduct the vaccination. In fact, there is already an initiative to deliver vaccination on a wider scale.

I quickly want to refer to the other important part of the alternative.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will very soon draw her remarks to a close.

[Angela Smith]

Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It must be remembered that cattle testing and movement is an important part of all this. Vaccination, cattle movement and testing, and biosecurity make up the package of measures that we need in order to move forward. I am sure that other Members will refer to some of the details.

In concluding, I want to refer to the Bow Group report, an excellent piece of work from the right of the political spectrum. We have the spectacle of a Labour MP recommending a Tory report, but it is an excellent report—thorough, sensible, and evidence-based. It has a number of recommendations, all of which are sensible. I want to focus quickly on three key recommendations. The report recommends that farmers no longer be allowed to move their herds from one of their farms to another without pre-movement testing. That is an important point, because currently they are allowed to do so. They should not be allowed to move their herds to agricultural shows or common land without pre-movement testing.

The report recommends more testing and increased use of the gamma interferon test, alongside the currently used test. I understand that the Government have moved on all this, but the report makes it clear that more needs to be done. Importantly, it recommends field trials of cattle vaccine, as recommended by the European Commissioner only last November, but so far we have heard nothing from DEFRA on when it will move ahead with that.

The Commons has an opportunity today to move on the issue and forge a new consensus. We should build on initiatives already taken by DEFRA on cattle movement and testing, and on biosecurity; and we should carry out vaccination on a comprehensive scale, and drop the culling.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Angela Smith and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I was totally taken by surprise to discover that the Minister is urging the House to accept Lords amendment 7 on voters waiting at polling stations at the close of poll. On 27 June 2012, I introduced this very amendment—it was almost word for word—which was known then as new clause 4. I will not repeat the speech I made then. We had a long debate and I was supported in my arguments by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—that is all on the record in Hansard, at column 359 and onwards. That is lucky, because we do not have time to debate that all again this afternoon, and I am delighted that we do not have to do so.

In that debate, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) stood there and told me how everything I said was wrong and that I was silly to waste the House’s time by introducing my new clause, which he said was total rubbish and totally unnecessary. He said that returning officers could deal with all the problems and that this was merely a matter of management.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mrs Laing]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with my recollection of what happened on 27 June. I believe she also agrees with my arguments that these matters should not be left up to individual registration officers, especially given that their ability, resources, experience and enthusiasm vary considerably from one part of the country to another.

Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Angela Smith and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

At the beginning of January this year, a little girl, aged six, who lives in my constituency, was viciously attacked by a dog that was out of control. Her ear was partially bitten off and she was covered in bites. Her mother was also badly injured while trying to rescue her. The dog’s owner was prosecuted and found guilty. He was given a three month suspended sentence and 200 hours of community service, and was ordered to pay compensation of £450. That was not an adequate penalty, and its imposition was not an encouragement to others to control their dogs properly. The way in which the case was handled has done nothing to prevent such a tragic incident from happening again.

I know that there is a lot of strong feeling about this issue in the House, and I commend the efforts of many hon. Members who have recently raised it here, in Westminster Hall debates and elsewhere. In particular, the House ought to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), each of whom has made considerable efforts to bring the matter to the fore.

I also commend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), and his colleague in another place, Lord Taylor. I know that the Government have carried out an extensive consultation and are trying to balance the various interests involved in the issue of controlling dangerous dogs. I understand that the consultation has recently closed, and I hope that the fact that I have secured the debate will give the Minister the opportunity to put certain matters before the House.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate at exactly the right time. Does she agree that legislation must be consolidated and updated as soon as possible to shift the emphasis to preventing the type of attack that she has eloquently described and that has triggered the debate?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, I entirely agree. The emphasis has to be on prevention. The House will be pleased to know that in the case I described, the little girl and her mother are now recovering. The little girl is having to endure a series of long operations, effectively to rebuild her ear. It is a dreadful thing for her to have to endure. We must all have in our minds the thought that the next child who is attacked by a vicious dog might not be fortunate enough to escape with injuries that the medical profession can put right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for educating the House on what is happening in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with the points he has made and will come to them shortly.

I have paid tribute to my colleagues in the House and the professional organisations involved, but I also pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Smith, the parents of the little girl who was attacked. They have set up a campaign to stop other children suffering in the way their daughter suffered. They have also set up a petition, which is gathering an enormous amount of support, which I am glad to see.

Not surprisingly, the incident gave rise to an outcry in the media. People are rightly asking: “Why do we put up with laws that are so ineffectual?” I was shocked to discover that some 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way to me once again. I would add to what she just said. Given the sheer number of postal workers who are attacked every year, is it not therefore necessary to extend the law relating to dog control to private property, and recognise that many children die in the home as a result of attacks by dogs that are out of control?

[Mrs Laing]

I agree with the hon. Lady. One anomaly in the current law is that the owners of a dog that behaves in a threatening, vicious, bad way on private property cannot be prosecuted. I hope the Minister comes forward with Government plans to correct that anomaly, if not today, in the near future. I have not heard anybody say, or read any evidence suggesting, that the contrary is the right way forward.

I was genuinely shocked when I discovered how many people suffer from dog attacks every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I certainly do. We all, in one way or another, raise money for good causes, and Guide Dogs for the Blind is one of the best. I am thinking of an excellent organisation in my constituency that raises money for Guide Dogs for the Blind. People put a lot of work into that. More than anything, however, those poor guide dogs themselves, trained to be calm and not to fight other dogs, are being attacked by other dogs. It is an utterly tragic situation, and one on which action must be taken. In saying that, however, I am quite sure that the Minister will tell us that action will be taken, because the Government cannot possibly ignore these dreadful situations, which are occurring every day in parts of our country.

Let us consider first the problem and then possible solutions. The problem, as we have just agreed across the House, is not that well-trained, well-cared-for dogs suddenly turn upon children, postmen or other dogs. The problem is that increasing numbers of dogs are being deliberately bred and trained as so-called status or weapon dogs. This has been recognised, and in London alone, about 1,000 such dogs were seized last year. I am pleased to note that Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse, at the Greater London authority, have taken this matter very seriously and have set up a unit to deal with status dogs. I should also say that both Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse have met the family of the little girl who was attacked in my constituency and have spoken to them very sympathetically. I have every confidence that action is being taken in London to combat what is a growing problem. I commend Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse for their understanding and their efforts, but let there be no misunderstanding: we are talking about a growing problem of deliberate bad behaviour, often associated with drug dealing and crime. This is not about old ladies with cute little spaniels or children with labradors. Any laws would have little effect on responsible dog owners, but would make life very difficult for irresponsible dog owners.

What we really need to do, however, is change public attitudes. Being something of a libertarian, I am always against state interference when it is not absolutely necessary. However, controlling dangerous dogs falls into the same category as wearing seatbelts in cars or smoking in public places. I was one of those who argued against the restrictions on personal freedom that the laws on seatbelts and smoking in public places imposed. I spoke against those laws on the grounds that we should not interfere with personal freedom, until I saw the proof that the evil done by the imposition of the rule was a very much lesser evil than that which resulted from not imposing it. In order to change public attitudes, the Government have to give a lead. First, we need a system that is simple to implement, and cheap and straightforward to enforce. The police and local authorities need to have adequate powers, adequate resources—preferably self-financing—and public support.

My constituent Mr Smith’s campaign, which has received an enormous and growing amount of support, has come up with the slogan, “Chip them, lead them and give kids freedom”—I think that is quite good. Microchipping, the use of leads and muzzles, and creating dog-free areas in parks are certainly possible ways forward. However, as other hon. Members have said, we must put the emphasis on prevention. I know that there are arguments against compulsory microchipping—the hon. Member for Strangford gave us a good example of how it is about to work well and is supported in Northern Ireland. There are arguments against microchipping, restricting freedom and imposing more red tape on yet another walk of life.

However, like everything else, it is a question of balance. I would argue that it would be perfectly reasonable to phase in a system of microchipping new puppies before they are sold. The cost would be minimal—I am told that the cost of inserting a microchip is often less than £10—and some 60% of dogs are already microchipped. Charities that look after dogs already microchip them, and many would offer to microchip the dogs of those who could not afford to do so should a compulsory system be introduced. I did not know much about what microchipping meant, but it might surprise the House to know that the microchip is about the size of a grain of rice. All that happens is that this little thing is injected into the scruff of the neck when the dog is about six weeks old. I am told that it does not hurt, and that it is simple and cheap.

Let us look at the benefits. It could be argued that making microchipping compulsory would have no effect, because the good dog owners already do it and the bad ones would simply ignore the law, as they do now. However, that is the very point of a compulsory microchipping system. We need a system that is simple for the police and local authorities to administer, and that will give an officer of the law or of a local authority an easy way to impose a penalty if the law is broken. That is why I propose that the imposition of a microchip in dogs born after a certain transition period should be a strict liability matter. Anyone in charge of a dog that did not have a microchip would be subject to a strict liability penalty for breaking the law, rather like a parking ticket.

The advantage of such a system is that it would bring speedy resolution, rather than involving long court cases in which evidence needed to be brought and people prosecuted. It would be easy, and it would give the RSPCA and local authorities the power to intervene. If a dog was not being properly trained or looked after and was viewed as a potential problem, the authorities could intervene simply because it was not microchipped. That is what I call the Al Capone effect. Hon. Members will remember that Al Capone was a notorious gangster and, no doubt, a murderer and torturer, but he was arrested for tax evasion. People who breed dogs for nefarious purposes might not be brought to justice for drug dealing or extortion, but they could be arrested for non-payment of the fine for not chipping their dog. That would give more power to the police and other authorities to take serious preventive action.

I understand that some local authorities are considering making microchipping a condition of allowing a dog to live in local authority accommodation. Could that not be extended? Preventive action could be taken, rather than reactive action; it would be simple to achieve, and would require no long drawn-out court proceedings. We license our cars, after all, and some dogs are just as dangerous as cars. We should have to register our dogs and accept responsibility for them.

Another possible solution is the compulsory use of a lead or muzzle. Again, I appreciate that most responsible dog owners would not dream of taking their dog into a public place without putting it on a lead. I can see the argument for not requiring a lead or a muzzle in all places at all times, but in certain designated areas—especially around children near schools and play parks, and in other obvious places—it would be perfectly reasonable for the law to require a dog to be kept on a lead or muzzled.

I am sure that the Minister will make the point about not bringing in more and more regulations and laws that are difficult to enforce, but I do not see the way forward as involving the placing of more burdens on the enforcement authorities or on law-abiding citizens. If he is reluctant to introduce a law requiring the use of leads and muzzles, would he consider a public information campaign to educate people about the benefits of keeping their dog on a lead, and the responsibilities involved? Once again, I am talking about changing public attitudes so that, instead of it being normal for a dog to run around and for people to have to accommodate the dog, it would be normal for a dog to be on a lead and for people to look at it suspiciously if it were not.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for a public information campaign, including perhaps information and advice about not leaving a dog alone in a house with a child, for instance, which is one reason why we have had some casualties and fatalities. Would it not also be useful to have a system of dog control notices in place, which would mean that when a dog is obviously out of control, local authorities could implement this system to encourage better behaviour, such as by putting the dog on a lead or muzzling it?

[Mrs Laing]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point about dog control notices. I suspect that they would work rather like dog ASBOs or antisocial behaviour orders. That might work, but I am and always have been rather sceptical about ASBOs in the first place, and my scepticism about them spills over to the idea of having dog control notices. Because we are talking about preventing serious tragedies from occurring in future, I would say that almost anything the Government could do would be welcome.

The third possibility is to have dog-free areas. Local authorities already have the power to make certain areas dog-free. Would it not be sensible—I am thinking about a particular park in Buckhurst Hill in my constituency where Epping Forest district council is currently considering this matter—to say that a small part of a park that is set out as a children’s playground should be dog-free, and that no dog should be allowed in that part? Another part of the park is perfectly okay for dogs, as they are not likely to come across children, so no tragic incidents would be likely to occur there. Where children are playing in a designated play area, however, it makes sense to say that there should be no dogs. Once again, I am ready for the hate mail from dog owners who will say that my suggestions would penalise those who look after their dogs. I honestly believe that people who train and care for their dogs responsibly would find somewhere other than a children’s play area to take their dogs for a walk. We need to put the children first and the dogs second.

The fourth suggestion for the Minister is that there should be some sort of system of compulsory insurance, coupled with compulsory chipping and registration of dogs. I am told that this could be done at minimal cost to the individual and that subscription to one of the dog charities could cover a block insurance for all dogs. If an incident occurred, proper compensation could then be paid to the injured party.

Finally, I turn to the question of penalties. Penalties imposed on people who have let their dogs get out of control and injure other people should be severe so that they have a deterrent effect. The current penalties are not taken seriously. They must be easily enforceable and sufficiently serious to act as a deterrent. Once again, I put it to the Minister that a system of strict liability fines along the lines of parking tickets could work. The last thing any of us want to do is to give the police even more work or to place even more burdens on their time. However, strict liability fines would make the system much easier to enforce. At present, anyone who parks on a yellow line a car that is registered as being in their care is given a penalty charge notice, and if they do not pay the charge, they are dealt with by the criminal justice system. A similar penalty charge notice could be issued to those who allow their dogs to behave in an unacceptable way—to threaten other people, for instance, or to enter a dog-free area.

I know that the Minister must consider cost. I put it to him that the cost to the national health service—which is some £10 million a year—and the cost to businesses of the working time that is lost as a result of dog attacks are far greater than the administrative costs of a licensing scheme would be.