Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.

Before I talk about the Bill, I would like to associate myself with the comments from across the House about the appalling events in New Zealand, which cast a shadow over us all today. I have no words that are truly sufficient.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on successfully steering their equally important Bills through the House. Let’s go for the hat-trick.

It is over a year since I first presented the Bill to the House. Not long after, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and I took part in an Adjournment debate on rivers authorities. Rather a lot has happened in those 12 months, not all of it particularly good, so I am delighted that in the last five weeks the Bill has moved from struggling to putting its head above the water in the long list of private Members’ Bills and then—with, I hope, the House’s support today—into the other place.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

That was a pun.

[David Warburton]

Yes, there was a pun there. I thank all those who have made this possible, particularly those who joined in the Committee stage, and I am grateful for the cross-party consensus and support, which has been very important and valuable.

My Bill covers the important topic of water management, particularly flooding. The House has debated flooding many times, and not just in respect of this Bill, so I know that we are all well aware that it is truly devastating and that such devastation can be wide-ranging and long-lasting. Many of our constituents, and some of us in this House, have had terrible direct experience of the effects and power of flooding, and anything we can do to help them help themselves, in addition to the record investment from this Government, which we should note, can only be a good thing.

Whether directly affected or not, no one in the House will not recall the images of inundated communities during the floods of 2007 and 2013-14 and of the winter of 2015-16, which impacted on so many people across our country. We must not forget, either, the other localised flooding that has affected many others between and since those events.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Warburton]

I am very glad to hear it.

As we experienced just this week with Storm Gareth, which brought high winds and heavy rainfall, we are powerless to control the weather, but that is not so with flooding. Things can be done to reduce the likelihood and the impact of floods. We can and we do help our communities to better manage the risk of flooding of their homes and businesses by constantly assessing the risk and taking strategic action to be better prepared so that when the weather is against us, there is less risk to life, livelihoods and property and recovery is quicker.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend refers to weather, to which flooding is obviously directly attributable, but in my constituency the water table rose and it was almost impossible to get rid of the water. It just kept coming and flooded a huge number of houses, particularly those with cellars. I do not understand what we can do about that.

[David Warburton]

I am no expert on water tables or the flooding of cellars, but that is exactly the kind of work that our internal drainage boards and other risk management authorities manage daily. The purpose of the Bill is to bring the work of those bodies together and add to their weaponry, so that they can work to help us all. To help to deliver that, my Bill will specifically provide opportunities for local partners and communities to better manage the risk of flooding and to improve water management, which will also have other benefits. The Bill will achieve that through the two types of public body that it covers.

The devastating floods that hit my constituency and those of other Members during the winters of 2013 and 2014 will forever be ingrained in my mind. I apologise to Members present who attended previous debates on the Bill and have heard this before—I will not go into all the details—but the events really were shattering for Somerset. I recall travelling by boat on what ought to have been roads on the Somerset levels and moors, and standing in people’s houses that were not only waist-deep in water but had been flooded only 12 months before.

From adversity comes opportunity, though, and neighbours and communities in Somerset came together. Members of those communities wanted to take action to reduce the chances of such flooding happening again and properly to manage the risk. The people of Somerset were keen to take ownership and proposed the creation of a new locally funded public body known as the Somerset Rivers Authority. I thank the Government for their support for the idea, and the SRA itself for the benefits its hard work has already provided since its inception, even though it is currently non-statutory and unincorporated. Members will be pleased to know that the Bill does not purely contain powers formally to establish the Somerset Rivers Authority, but rather enables the creation of rivers authorities wherever there is local need and support and due process is followed.

The Bill’s first measure will enable the creation of rivers authorities, which will be risk management authorities and major precepting authorities. They will be able to issue a council tax precept each year, to be used for local flood risk management activities in addition to those already undertaken by the Environment Agency, IDBs, local authorities and others.

Although a rivers authority would need to encompass an entire local authority area, if desired it could span any number of local authority areas, thus providing a level of joined-up strategic planning where appropriate. Rivers authorities will be locally accountable bodies that work with all risk management authorities, including water companies, to help reduce the local risk of flooding from all sources. They will use the funding provided by the precepts to undertake such work as will benefit their entire areas of operation. The rivers authorities model is very much one of collaboration and enabling the use of knowledge and expertise to deliver for communities. A rivers authority is not there to usurp any other organisation or the Government’s and the Environment Agency’s important work throughout the country.

Although, as I have said before, Somerset is fortunate, as in so much else, in already having its own rivers authority. The Bill is the final piece in incorporating that authority formally and ensuring that it has a secure future.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I was aware of that, which is why I did not include them, but the countries whose names I just read out are likely to be the five biggest economies in the world. We know that the EU has been trying to sign a deal with China and a deal with America, and has failed so far to do so, principally because it requires the agreement of every single member state, and we have seen how difficult that can be.

Also, of course, the provision of the backstop creates the one thing that the Prime Minister said she could never accept under any circumstances—a border down the Irish sea. If the Northern Ireland protocol and the backstop could be taken out of the withdrawal agreement and put into that basket of issues that we shall settle in the course of the transitional period, as part of the arrangement covering our future agreement for trade with the European Union, that would remove the problem. It is where it ought to be. It was always daft that the Northern Ireland border issue could be determined before we knew what was going to be in the future trade agreement. The Prime Minister herself has now accepted that, actually, over the course of the two years, it should be possible to find a solution that will allow free movement back and forth across that border, on the basis of technology, so the Government think that can be done in the next two years. If we could only get it out of the withdrawal agreement, we would then have the time in which we could demonstrate that it would never be necessary.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I operated a hard border in Northern Ireland for two years. We stopped every car, we searched every car, we checked every person. I absolutely believe it is perfectly possible for there to be free movement across that border, given willingness on both sides and the use of new techniques, particularly things like pre-registration and number- plate recognition. I think that border does not need to be hard.

Middle Level Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. Yes, that is partly why Lords amendment 7 allows an ability to provide some charge for a more commercial operation. It could perhaps be a block charge to British Canoeing for those who are using the waterway, so that people pay a membership fee to British Canoeing before they are able to use particular waterways rather than paying individual fees to each individual operation. I see some nodding from those in the Under-Gallery. It is about trying to avoid a situation where a person with a canoe finds themselves having to register as a boat user to get on the water and pay a fee as if they were a large operation. They will not be completely barred, but they will be in a different charging regime from the standard one for the major pleasure boats and crafts using the waterway.

As the Minister will be aware, the current system of regulation means that fairly large pleasure and commercial boats can use the Middle Level with absolutely no charge at all. That is severely hindering its development and opportunities. Most worryingly of all, the current legislation does not provide for a modern system of safety regulation. This Bill does, hence why the commissioners are very keen to get it in place so that they can ensure that there is a modern and recognisable standard of boat safety on the Middle Level.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could I be quite clear about this, because I am slightly worried? There is no question, is there, of a family taking a canoe out having to pay when they go on these waterways? That would seem excessive.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The Lords amendment that I have just briefly covered is designed to deal with some of those concerns. It would be quite common on other waterways to have a system whereby if someone was a member of the British Canoeing Society, that membership fee would cover the cost. The commissioners may also put in place some restrictions regarding, for example, children wearing life vests. I think most of us would feel that that would be a sensible form of regulation on the waterway.

The general intention of the Lords amendment is to recognise that the Middle Level is a key part of the local community. Many use it informally. Although we need to bring in a form of safety regulation, it is not intended to bring that into the main scheme, although, as on other waterways, there might be a requirement to be a member of a recognised organisation that then contributes to the upkeep of safety equipment and other areas. There would then not necessarily be an additional charge to go on the Middle Level.

Lords Amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with some of the issues that were raised on the membership of the navigation advisory committee and how it would work. Lords Amendment 2 would be familiar to anyone who has served on a local authority, with the idea that one should declare any personal interest or any matters that would be relevant to one’s decisions. Some of the petitioners raised a concern that the navigation advisory committee must fairly represent the users. In essence—the promoters may not thank me for saying this—it should not be the case that, for example, the commissioners’ mates or one particular group end up finding themselves on the navigation advisory committee.

However, the promoters were happy to accept the idea that relevant interests should be declared and that there should be clear processes for how that works. I do not think that any of us would see it as unreasonable that someone appointed to a representative body should declare to those they are representing what potential interests they may have that are relevant to their position on, in this case, the navigation advisory committee. They would not have to give a life story of their entire business affairs, but they would certainly have to declare anything that was relevant to their being on that committee—for example, what their interest is in the Middle Level, what they are doing there and how their business might operate. Those using the waterway for navigation could then satisfy themselves that there was a broad range of people represented there.

Pet Theft

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

The hon. Gentleman makes a particularly relevant point. I agree that we must support any endeavour to improve legislation around animal cruelty.

The penalty for pet theft is based on the monetary value of the pets, not the emotional value to the owner. The 2015 theft offences guidelines classified the level of harm caused by theft into four categories. For the theft to be classed as category 1 or 2, the property stolen must have a value of over £500. Many pets have little or no monetary value, meaning that criminals stealing them are able to receive only minimal sentences in line with category 3 or 4. The maximum sentence for stealing a dog worth less than £500 is two years’ imprisonment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I do not think my dogs would fetch more than 50 quid each. I am worried that we seem to be going backwards. In 1770, the Act preventing the stealing of dogs received Royal Assent. Anyone caught was fined or imprisoned or suffered hard labour—I think it was adjusted in 1846. The Theft Act 1968 seems to have removed the requirement to deal with people who steal dogs, which is a shame.

[Mike Hill]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a learned contribution—I appreciate the history.

[Bob Stewart]

Fifty quid.

[Mike Hill]

Fifty quid, indeed.

At present, the sentencing guidelines are such that it is hard to see a situation where a non-financially valuable pet can get out of category 4 and a prized pedigree can get out of category 3. That is clearly wrong. We should not tie the hands of the sentencing court by being prescriptive over value in cases such as pet theft. Where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant and should be disregarded.

We need tougher sentences. Since the 2016 revision to the sentencing guidelines, there has been no evidence that the courts have become any tougher on pet theft. Very few cases are getting to court. When they do, the guilty most often walk free. Some 98% of criminal cases are heard in magistrates courts, where sentencing for pet theft is almost certainly below six months.

Dr Daniel Allen’s research has found that less than 5% of dog theft crimes lead to charges, which includes community orders. The often-cited seven-year maximum sentence has never been awarded for the theft of a pet and cannot be handed down specifically for the theft of a pet. Alongside that, microchipping dogs became compulsory across the UK in April 2016, but scanning remains optional.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

If I understand my hon. Friend’s point, the Proceeds of Crime Act is fine when there are some proceeds, but when there are no proceeds, it is very difficult to use. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned that his dogs are worth about £50 each.

[Bob Stewart]

Less.

[Gareth Johnson]

My dogs are not worth 50p each, but that is not the point. The whole point is that our pets are priceless to us and the law does not recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Sharma.

Back in the early 1990s I was involved in breaking up a puppy farming ring in Wales—I got involved with a national newspaper—and I saw that the animals were kept in appalling conditions. The puppies were sold at motorway service stations. More recently I went out with the RSPCA in one of my local little towns, Jaywick, and we looked at various places where dogs were being mistreated—not necessarily through deliberate cruelty, but through ignorance, a lot of the time. It really is extraordinary that we sometimes call ourselves an animal-loving country.

It is a great honour to stand here today and represent the 168 people from Clacton who signed the petition. As I have said before, the theft of pets, and especially dogs, happens all too frequently in my constituency. In one case, two French bulldog puppies, Oswald and Dakota, were stolen from their house in Eton Road in Clacton. The puppies were eventually reunited with their owner, which is a rare good news story, but that was only after a Facebook campaign that got 2,500 visits, and I reckon the puppies must have become too hot to handle. However, when they were returned, they were distressed. According to the owner, they were clearly starving and not in good condition.

[Bob Stewart]

So far, we have not actually looked at the problem from the point of view of the dogs. Dogs have feelings, too. It must be bloody awful for a dog to go from a really loving home to the barbarous places where they are put.

[Giles Watling]

I did detect a sort of question there. I totally agree with my hon. Friend that dogs have feelings and stealing them is barbarous. I have dogs myself. I have cavalier poodle bichon crosses—all right, they are mongrels. They are part of my family and the thought of losing one of them really distresses me, which is why I want to combat pet theft. It is terribly important. I raised my concerns with the Minister during a debate on rural crime in the main Chamber, and I asked for more information on what the Government intend to do about the issue. Unfortunately, that information was not forthcoming, so I hope to elicit a better response today from the Minister; I say that very nicely.

The matter is important, and the current application of the law surrounding pet theft is ineffective and should be changed to make the monetary value of the pet irrelevant, which will ensure that all criminals are prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law. As we know, 105,968 people signed the petition, and 97% of respondents to a “Dogs Today” survey support the proposal and agree that all pet theft should be treated equally, regardless of the animal’s initial monetary value. There is clearly a great deal of public support for a change, and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as we move forward.

I also ask the Minister to bear in mind something that has been said many times this afternoon, but that is worth reiterating: pet theft is cruel. It is cruel to the owners who are left bereft after the loss of a friend, a loved one and a member of the family, and it is cruel to the animal itself, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The animal can be mistreated or even, as we have heard—it is horrific—have its microchip cut out of its neck without anaesthetic to avoid detection.

The Government’s current position needs to evolve and take account of the strong public sentiment and the cruel impact that pet theft has on those involved. I have no doubt that I will be reassured that laws are already in place to deal firmly with offenders who commit such crimes. To expand on that point further, and as I am sure we are all aware, the theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I could not agree more. I am coming on to the question of low risk and high reward, which makes the crime attractive because the risk is so low but some of the animals can be worth a great deal. Indeed, they are stolen to breed from, and therefore the rewards are multiplied by however many puppies they have. The maximum penalty at the moment is seven years’ imprisonment, and it very rarely, if ever, gets imposed.

The guidelines take account of the emotional distress and therefore the harm that the theft of personal items such as a pet can have on the victim, and they recommend higher penalties for such offences. However, although I welcome such developments, I am uneasy about the current position for various reasons. First, as the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance—SAMPA—tells us, the seven-year maximum sentence has never been awarded, so, out of the 646 reported incidences of pet theft in 2017, there were no cases where that sentence was applied. That is because the penalty for pet theft is often decided based on the monetary value of the pet, as we have heard this afternoon. Many pets have little or no monetary value, although in the eyes of their owner, as we have said, they are priceless. However, in the eyes of the court, that value does not exist. The courts deal only in monetary terms, and the most severe sentence recommended for stealing a pet that is worth less than £500 is two years rather than seven.

My second point of contention is that in the past three years dog theft has increased by 24%, which demonstrates that the sentencing guidelines are clearly not working and are not a deterrent to potential pet thieves. To demonstrate that point further, between 2015 and 2018, 96.75% of dog thefts ended without charge, showing that the courts have not become tougher on this particular aspect of pet theft. Additionally, I have heard from SAMPA that the police are reluctant to record pet theft because it negatively affects their crime figures. That explains why cases of pet theft are rarely investigated, and why the few cases that do make it to court do not result in a conviction. Potential criminals know that the chance of getting caught or ever receiving punishment is, as we said earlier, very slim, so the crime is low risk.

My third concern is the reliance on microchipping, which does not address the issue. Microchips can be overwritten, meaning that stolen dogs can be easily moved on rather than reunited with their owner, as the Government suggest. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the chips can simply be cut out, causing great distress to the animal. As a result, I believe we must address that particular issue and improve security compliance on the microchip database. Also, we should complement the microchipping regime with a new dog registration regime, and I will be bringing forward legislation to reintroduce that here in England in due course.

[Bob Stewart]

Our financially worthless, indolent dogs are each microchipped. They also have their own passports, with photographs. My wife owns them and controls them, which is more than I can do. Does my hon. Friend agree that the passport system could be used to help to trace dogs when they are stolen?

[Giles Watling]

That is indeed a possibility. The legislation that I intend to introduce will provide for a reintroduction of the licensing system, so that we know where all the dogs are, who owns them and how they are being looked after, so we can have some grasp on animal cruelty.

Like Dogs Trust, I am troubled by the decision to equate animals with property, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) mentioned. That decision means that we are denying animals the right to be considered sentient beings. The Government’s current position seems to mean that pets derive their sentience only from being in the possession of their owner, given that when they are wrongly separated they become property for the duration of the prosecution and are therefore exempt from the Government’s promise to ensure that their welfare is protected. That must change.

All animals are sentient, regardless of their location or continuation of legitimate ownership. As the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill sets out, the Government

“must have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings in formulating and implementing government policy.”

Accordingly, the Government must recognise that their current position does not protect the welfare of sentient animals when they are stolen, and the sentencing guidelines for pet theft must be changed to move us closer to a position where their welfare can always be assured.

I maintain that the current position is not working. It does not deter or limit pet theft; in fact, I would argue that pet theft is getting worse. Pet theft should be identified as a separate criminal activity and be covered by its own law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on introducing this important debate. I thank the organisers of the petition and the 105,000 people who signed it. The parliamentary e-petition system is a fantastic way of connecting us with our constituents on the issues that are really important to us and of putting such issues on the agenda.

We are clearly a nation of animal lovers. I declare an interest, as the owner of a dog and a cat. Many hon. Members have shared their experience of their pets. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for his contribution. He said it is a real disgrace that so few stolen pets are ever reunited with their owners. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is clearly very knowledgeable about this issue and made a particularly powerful point about sentencing guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) made some very important interventions, which added significantly to the debate. I was particularly pleased to hear the story the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) told about how his dog, Poppy, reacts when he leaves to come down here—like other hon. Members, I could share similar stories. I congratulate him on his ten-minute rule Bill, and I wish him luck with it in the House tomorrow.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the huge impact that the loss of a much-loved pet can have on a family. The hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) talked about the cruelty of pet theft, not just to the family who lost the pet but to the pet itself. It is important that we do not forget that. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) works tirelessly on dog welfare in this House and made an important contribution.

As pet owners, we truly love our animals. Figures from Dogs Trust show that 99% of pet owners consider their animal to be part of the family—we all do. We have heard that the bond between an animal and its family is linked to the bond between a parent and their child, so it is clearly a terrible nightmare for a family if their dog or cat is stolen.

More than 60 dogs are stolen across England and Wales every single week. That is 60 families whose beloved pets are taken. Disgracefully, fewer than 5% of cases end in convictions. We do not want that situation to be allowed to continue. As Members of the House, it is our duty to try to do something about it.

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home told me that there is no single database of pet-related theft, so any information comes from freedom of information requests to individual police forces—the hon. Member for Dartford made that point clearly. Will the Minister tell us how we can tackle this problem if we do not know the scale of it? I understand the concerns raised about categorising pets in legislation designed to deal with property theft. As hon. Members said, it is important that we recognise in law that animals are sentient beings and not the equivalent of a laptop or a blender.

Tragically, on average, five dogs a day are stolen and then sold, bred or forced to fight. We have heard that the numbers are increasing; my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool gave us some clear figures and information about that. We have also heard that designer dogs such as cockapoos or French bulldogs sell for a high price, and that Staffordshire bull terriers are often stolen for dog fighting. It is thought that the lack of prosecution and the lenient punishments are contributing to this rise. Pet theft offenders receive community service orders or a fine more often than a custodial sentence—certainly not the seven years that could be handed out.

It is heartbreaking that so few pets are reunited with their owners. Some breeds are more likely to be stolen. Labrador thefts are up 42% year on year; as the owner of a beautiful chocolate labrador called Max, I find that horrifying. The thought of losing Max is dreadful. He is six, but one of the first things we did when we got him as a puppy was to insure him, because we were advised that he was at high risk of being stolen. That is a terrible thing to have to contemplate.

I appreciate what the Government have said about updating sentencing guidelines for theft offences to account for the emotional stress caused by pet theft, and I understand that the guidelines now recommend high penalties in such cases. As hon. Members have said today, however, we need to ensure that the proper sentences are given and that prosecutions are increased. We must catch as many perpetrators as possible to do our best to stamp out this appalling crime, which causes such terrible upset to families.

On microchipping, it is welcome that the Government now require all dogs to be microchipped and registered by the age of eight weeks. That does not solve the problem—we have heard that microchips can be dug out—but it has already had a positive impact.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Lady join me in asking the Minister whether we ought to look again at licensing dogs? That used to happen when I was a boy—when the world was black and white, of course.

[Sue Hayman]

I remember going with my mother to the post office to get a licence for our dalmatian—I was only a small child, obviously. We ought to look at anything that might help, so licensing clearly needs to be looked at; if it can help solve this crime, it is an important part of the picture.

The Labour party is committed to promoting the highest level of care for domestic animals. Recently, our animal welfare plan was out for consultation until the end of May, and it included a proposal to expand microchipping to cats, which at the moment do not have to be chipped. Is that something that the Government will consider seriously? Our manifesto also pledged an end to the third-party sale of puppies. Is that something the Government will consider to improve the welfare of dogs? We also proposed measures to tackle puppy smuggling, such as the introduction of a microchip database—databases were mentioned earlier in the debate—to record microchip numbers of animals entering and leaving the country and get a better idea of where dogs are. Will the Minister and the Government match that aspiration too?

Enforcement of our laws is carried out by our tireless police services. Is it not imperative that the police are properly funded so that they can act to enforce the law and catch the criminals who are cruelly stealing pets from their owners?

The petition and today’s excellent debate have raised really important issues across the board, giving us all a lot to think about in terms of what needs to be done. The Labour party manifesto, on which my colleagues and I were elected last year, stated:

“Domestic animals require stronger protection from cruelty.”

It also set out a

“vision…for the UK to lead the world with high animal welfare standards in the wild, in farming and for domestic animals.”

That is something we stand by today and, from the clear cross-party support in this debate, hon. Members right across the House would also back strengthening the law in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Coastal Erosion

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing the debate.

I want briefly to talk about the serious issue of erosion on the island of Walney, which is just opposite Barrow-in-Furness. That strip of land is connected to the mainland by a bridge. We have wanted a second bridge for many generations, but Walney could need one in a way that we had never anticipated, because it is quite possible that unless action is taken, the island will be split in two by the serious erosion that is taking place—similarly to in other areas across the country—far faster than any study has predicted.

There are two main issues, one in the north of the island and one in the south. In the north, there is what is officially known as West Shore caravan park. The name might suggest that it is a transient part of the visitor economy, but people have bought static caravans there and live in a community. They have seen the erosion getting closer and closer to their homes, threatening several hundred properties. For many years, we have beseeched the Government and looked to the local authority, and potentially to private investment, but the issue remains critical. In the main, the park provides homes for low-income and often elderly, retired people. They are afraid of what nature is doing and fear for the homes they had always dreamed of having on the coast.

On the south of the island is South Walney nature reserve, which is home to Cumbria’s only grey seal colony and to the Walney geranium, which is unique to the island. There is a rare vegetated shingle patch, and the yellow horned poppy, which I am reliably told is hard to find, is grown there. The reserve is an invaluable resource for Barrow’s schoolchildren. Teachers in some of the schools tell me that many children have never seen the natural environment until they are taken to such places. The reserve is connected by a road that is in desperate need of rock armouring. Without such flood and coastal erosion protection, there is the potential for the island to be cut in two and for the nature reserve to be rendered impassable.

As if all that were not enough, it is not simply about saving the yellow horned poppy; the nation’s continuous at-sea deterrent may be at stake for the want of a single road that could be rock armoured for, the landowner tells me, only £200,000. We are in the process of spending about £30 billion on renewing the nation’s deterrent—I know everyone in this room will be thoroughly behind that; it is great value to protect the nation from the threat of nuclear destruction—but for the want of £200,000 and a few rocks, we could render the exit passage from Barrow shipyard impassable. At the moment, the boats come out of the dock and sail down Walney channel and away to start their sea trials. They then come back to Faslane. The amount of silt that flows into the channel from the erosion on Walney could make the narrow passage impassable. Often, submarines can pass through it only once a month.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My back is hurting so it takes me a while to get up. Is that channel dredged to ensure that it works all the time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gillian Keegan]

I agree. My local authority is very concerned by negative RSG, not just the disappearance of RSG. Negative RSG would mean having to pay more to support other areas.

The council’s collaborative work has achieved high levels of third-party investment and led to better coastal protection. My hon. Friend is right that we need to properly fund our coastal areas. At East Head and at Pagham harbour, coastal advisory groups run the UK’s only two active management sites. Both sites have a highly dynamic coastline, so predicting erosive and flood patterns can be very challenging. Active management involves long-term monitoring and observation to ensure interventions are effective and in tune with the natural processes.

The regional coastal monitoring programme, based in Southampton, is key to that process, providing data on waves, tides and the changing nature of the coastline. Armed with that data, the group can make decisions on interventions such as replacing or removing failing structures or replenishing beach sediments. Such is the success of the programme that natural changes at Pagham since 2016 have removed the threat to residents in the short term and introduced an intertidal wetland habitat that is now a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds nature reserve.

The council receives a grant of £250,000 a year. That funding allows it to protect people, business and habitats. Over recent years, the Environment Agency has invested a further £30 million as part of its flood and coastal erosion risk management at Medmerry, where the UK’s first managed realignment site is ongoing. West Wittering, where erosive processes are mitigated to maintain the beach, attracted around 800,000 visitors last year, driving the local economy and simultaneously helping protect the internationally important saltmarsh environment sheltered by East Head spit.

There is still significant concern in my area, however. In the long term, the council has warned that highly populated areas such as Selsey, Bracklesham and East Wittering will eventually require significant investment.

[Bob Stewart]

I know West Wittering; it is a fabulous beach. Knowing it quite well, I wonder how the heck it and the saltmarshes can be protected. The area is so big, and the whole of my hon. Friend’s constituency is quite low lying. With rising sea levels, I do not see how we can do much about it.

[Gillian Keegan]

That is the point of the debate; we have to do something about it, because no one would want to see the disappearance of such an important stretch of coastline or the nature reserves we have in the area. My hon. Friend is right that we have to focus on low-lying areas, but protecting the Chichester constituency coastline and the south coast will be increasingly important.

As an area, we must continue to invest in our coastal infrastructure. We look forward to the larger investment that will be required alongside our innovative approaches, such as managed realignment and active management. It is true that we cannot do it alone. We require further investment from the Department.

Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend pre-empts a point that I will make later. We need to differentiate animals that are exported and slaughtered shortly after they arrive—I see no point in that—and those that are exported for other reasons, such as for breeding stock or for fattening on. We need to consider those two different categories.

With the Conservative party manifesto commitment, the amount of support that this petition received, and the ten-minute rule Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has proposed, it is clear that this is a timely debate and an opportune moment for us to consider these issues—not least because of the awareness and concern among the general public.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, many people accept that there are differences between exporting animals for slaughter and for other reasons. At times, there are many good reasons to export animals, such as for breeding stock or for rearing on, but there seems to be no good reason to export an animal that is simply destined to be slaughtered soon after it reaches its destination. I can find no good or valid reason for that type of export to continue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We may not be able to legislate before we leave the European Union, but we could certainly suggest a good code of practice, to be followed with immediate effect.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we should certainly consider that. If, for any reason, our opportunity to make those changes is delayed longer than we would like, some intervention along the way might be appropriate.

Many people agree with the reasonable proposition that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are raised, and that the carcases should then be exported. We should seek to apply that; it is not only far more efficient, but clearly better for the animals. If we were to do that, there would also be an opportunity to up-sell and to create more jobs in the UK, rather than exporting the value-added part of the process with the live animals. A ban may have an impact on some trade, and we need to accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on his introduction to the debate.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has a wonderful record in animal welfare measures, but I have to say immediately that I am absolutely delighted we are leaving the European Union, as are my constituents, and one of the biggest beneficiaries will be the animal kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and I, for 35 years, have consistently championed animal welfare measures in this place. For a while, it seemed that we were rather few in numbers on our side of the House, which could have been because many Conservative Members represented farming communities. When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon I had 28 farms in my constituency; now I am the Member for Southend West I have no farms, so there are no farmers lobbying me. I understand that if a Member from any party has a farming community in their constituency this is possibly not an easy issue to consider, but as far as I am concerned, we can judge life generally on the way in which we treat animals. Mrs Lorraine Platt and others, through the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, have absolutely transformed the way in which colleagues—certainly Conservative Members—see these matters.

From 1997 to 2010, a number of animal welfare organisations supported the Labour party with their money, but as far as I am concerned the only good thing that Tony Blair did was ban foxhunting. On all other animal welfare measures, he let the British people down badly. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the marvellous reception he gave in the Jubilee Room a short while ago celebrating pasties, and I am delighted that we have a Minister who is doing a splendid job on animal welfare. His boss, the Secretary of State—he was an outstanding Secretary of State for Education, too—is saying everything that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet have wanted to hear for so many years. I hope that more and more colleagues who are joining the campaign will support the Minister and the Secretary of State in their mission.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, in 2012 we took part in a debate on animal welfare exports. At the time, live animal export numbers were dwindling, and I held out hope that a future debate on the subject would not be necessary. It is obvious that the industry has grown again since then. I associate myself with the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I know the RSPCA has had a number of internal difficulties, but as long as Lady Stockton remains one of the trustees, I have great faith in that organisation, and I hope it will continue to promote sensible animal welfare measures.

The RSPCA is concerned that, as the hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned, millions of farm animals transported around Europe for fattening and slaughter are suffering from stress, exhaustion, thirst and rough handling. I cannot believe that these animals enjoy the way they are transported.

[Bob Stewart]

I have always understood it that if animals are worried or hugely concerned, it has a direct impact on the quality of the product after they are dead. It would be much more sensible to move them quickly before they get too concerned.

[Sir David Amess]

My hon. Friend, as ever, has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right. Government figures show that 20,000 calves were exported from Northern Ireland to Spain in both 2016 and 2017. Those young calves are being packed into lorries and sent on journeys lasting up to 135 hours. A review of the scientific literature concluded:

“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport.”

Frankly, I do not think human beings would cope with being transported for a tiny fraction of that time. It continues:

“Their immune systems are not fully developed, and they are not able to control their body temperature well, thus they are susceptible to both heat and cold stress.”

It concludes that

“transport should be avoided where possible”.

Compassion in World Farming—at one point it was not very popular on the Conservative Benches, but I think that has changed, and I admire that organisation—believes that a large number of calves do not survive the journey and that the remainder are likely to spend the rest of their short lives in barren pens. Such cases exemplify why the RSPCA is rightly calling for an end to the long-distance transport of live animals in favour of a carcase-only trade.

It is such a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, has left his place, because there are some things that concern me slightly.

Animal Welfare

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

What a relief it is that we are discussing something other than our leaving the European Union. I am absolutely sick to death of hearing about it—and we have another two years to go.

The standard by which I judge civilisation is how we treat animals and animal welfare more generally. I have been involved in animal welfare matters ever since I entered the House, so I have heard many of the arguments before. Indeed, when David Mellor was a Member of this place, I recall serving on the Standing Committee that considered a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

Looking back at the different things that we have done—I managed to get two pieces of legislation on to the statute book—by and large this country has a good record on animal welfare. However, the incident that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) shared with the House was absolutely awful—no words can describe how horrible it was. I think we are going to have a debate in which we all agree; I doubt whether anyone will stand up and say, “Let’s be cruel to animals.”

I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who opened the debate, that I have seen many reports produced by this place—some gather dust; some are acted on; and some are completely ignored. Parliaments change and new Members enter, so it can be as if we are raising these issues for the first time, but one or two things have changed. My hon. Friend is entirely right that we need tougher sentences, but can our prisons take the people? Do we need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) mentioned earlier, more publicity when people are sentenced? I absolutely agree that we need tougher sentences.

There is politics in everything, and there is certainly politics in the animal world. I have received all sorts of emails asking me to mention an organisation or to praise this person or that person, and I am not sure that we are all singing the same song, so I am going to praise just two ladies. The first is Lorraine Platt, who runs an animal welfare organisation that I support and has done a fantastic job as far as I am concerned. The second is the Countess of Stockton, who is a trustee of the RSPCA. I will leave it to other Members to decide which organisation they want to praise.

The main thing that has changed is online sales, which are a new challenge and a big issue. As we have heard, it is wrong for someone to buy a puppy without seeing where it comes from and how it is being looked after. Anne Widdecombe bought a black labrador for my youngest child, and I am delighted to say that it had been owned by the grandson of Rab Butler, so it certainly had a good pedigree and gave us 14 years of joy. It is important that people know where a puppy comes from. As we all know, while small things will look cute and cuddly, there is an awful lot of responsibility in looking after a pet when they grow up.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

According to my information, about one third of people do not see the mother when picking up a puppy.

[Sir David Amess]

My hon. Friend is right. The situation is lamentable, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton that I am unsure how we put that right. We just have to keep on and on with the same message.

As part of Project Capone, Hindesight has been monitoring the sales of animals on sites such as Gumtree. Its findings demonstrate the clear need for legislation to address the problem. Despite the figures I am about to quote, I stress that Gumtree should be lauded for doing more than any other site to monitor online sales and comply with Pet Advertising Advisory Group minimum standards. Gumtree UK adverts were monitored over a 12-month period ending in February this year, and 400,000 adverts related to the sale of animals were tracked, 58% of which related to dogs. Estimates suggest that as many as 88% of puppies born in Great Britain are bred by unlicensed breeders, which is totally unacceptable. The EFRA report, which I have of course read, states at paragraph 95 that Gumtree listings for pets for sale has decreased from 50,000 to 15,000, which should be welcomed.

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that—my goodness—I have seen all sorts of people as Ministers. Some do the job brilliantly, but with some we need a little bit of convincing about their dedication to animal welfare. I am convinced that this particular Minister is absolutely genuine on this issue and that he will react positively to the report.

We need websites to commit to following at least the minimum PAAG standards, and it is important that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised. Although the vast majority of the public state that they would not buy a puppy from a commercially driven breeder, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is absolutely right about the small number who see a puppy with its mother.

I welcome DEFRA’s announcement that it will be a legal requirement for sellers to display their licence number on all adverts, but there are also problems with ensuring that licences are properly granted and that local authorities have adequate resources to assess applicants for a licence. Local authorities are currently in charge of licensing, but it is extremely difficult for them to tackle illegal trading on such a scale because they lack the resources to monitor the enormous volume of online sales. Indeed, local authorities are unable to monitor the trade offline, or to provide qualified individuals to assess welfare needs.

Along with a stricter licensing regime, we need professionals who are able adequately to determine whether a licence should be granted. Unfortunately, local authority officials who inspect places where animals are sold are not necessarily trained specifically in detecting animal welfare issues. Another important point is that individuals who buy such animals are not aware that the seller should be licensed.

The message from this House should be that transparency and public education are incredibly important. Sometime in July we are holding a responsible pet ownership competition on the green at the other end of the building, and I hope that all hon. Members who are interested will join us in celebrating responsible pet ownership.

Income from online sales is rarely declared, so I remind the Minister that a lot of money is being lost in income tax, which should be of significant concern to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Apparently the single most expensive dog advertised—just last month by a London-based seller—was a French bulldog for £30,000, which is big money.

Research from Blue Cross shows that even when inspections are carried out, the quality of investigations varies massively from local authority to local authority. Standardised inspection criteria should help to ensure that basic animal welfare is met across the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and his hard-working Committee on producing the report. I hope that it will not gather dust, but that it will be acted on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I, too, commend the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, for securing the debate. The report is another example of the very good work that the Committee is doing. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I gather that you are something of a Dr Dolittle, with a number of pets under your wing.

We truly are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. I was brought up on a farm with dogs, and a dog was my best friend. As a moody teenager, I turned to the dog more than anyone else to pour my heart out to. I, too, take part in the wonderful Westminster dog of the year competition. I actually borrow a dog from the Dogs Trust, just to highlight all the good work it does in promoting dog ownership.

[Bob Stewart]

Isn’t that cheating?

[Rebecca Pow]

It is not cheating; I try to do a useful education job. We have talked so much about education—[Interruption.] There is a lot of mithering going on behind me, but it is not cheating; it is all about education and getting the right messages to people about animal ownership.

I will touch on a couple of the report’s themes, namely sentencing and licensing, which have been addressed by many other colleagues. Puppy farming is a massive business in the UK. It is worth an estimated £300 million, so it is not small. To put it simply, demand outstrips supply, as we have heard, which leaves space for unscrupulous breeders to come in and operate. The report aims to address that.

Members on both sides of the House agree that the UK has very high animal welfare standards. We pride ourselves on that, which is why it is strange and puzzling that our sentences for offenders are so low. The maximum sentence, as we have heard, is six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. To put that in context, Northern Ireland, Latvia and Montenegro have maximum prison sentences of five years, which makes me think that we need to look at the issue.

We have the lowest sentences for animal abuse crimes in the developed world. As has been said—I am sure that the Minister knows this, but I want to highlight it again—there is a very strong link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. One study found that in 88% of homes where child abuse had been discovered, there had also been incidents of animal abuse. Another study found that up to 83% of women who enter domestic violence shelters report that their abusers have also been abusing the family pet. That very worrying and strong link shows why we should take the issue so seriously.

People can get five years for fly-tipping—that is a serious offence, so we should not backtrack on such sentences—but if someone burns their pet or carries out gross abuse such as that described by Opposition Members, they might get only six months. That is absolutely unbelievable. Clearly we do not want to overload our prisons, but we need to have another look at the issue and not be coy about very serious cases.

An example that recently arose in my constituency involved not a dog or a cat, but a dairy farm. The dairy farmer is in the top group for animal welfare standards among dairy farmers, but unbeknown to him, a lad he had taken on as an apprentice—this was secretly filmed by Animal Equality—was going in and kicking the nursing cows in the face, kicking the calves, pressing them up against metal gates, and slamming the gates on them and abusing them verbally. It was absolutely horrific. The dairy farmer had no idea that that was happening until he was shown the video, which hon. Members can see online. The lad’s sentence is being considered at the moment, but it will probably not fit the crime.

I will quickly touch on internet sales, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke eloquently. Many illegal puppy sales take place on the internet, and I am pleased that the Government are looking at the matter. I welcome the fact that breeders now require a numbered licence to sell puppies online. Many people want the Government to introduce a centralised register, as has been touched on. My daughter is always sending me pictures of cutesy little puppies in handbags or in chocolate boxes that she has seen online. She says, “Mummy, why don’t we get one of these?” but I know for a fact that lots of those puppies have been illegally bred and imported, and they have probably been subject to some of the horrible things that we heard about in detail from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies).

Dog Fighting

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Cameron]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We have to remember that we have hearing dogs, dogs that work for the blind, dogs that help us in the police force and the fire brigade and dogs that help us in all aspects of our lives. That is why it is quite so unbelievable that some people treat dogs in such a way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I point out that we have dogs that have saved the lives of our soldiers on many occasions, such as in Northern Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan, and will continue to do so? God bless them.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, it is extremely important that we recognise the value of dogs in every aspect of our society and in our armed forces.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Wilson—and also for your stealth entrance, which went unnoticed by some Members in the Chamber.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on leading this debate. The scale of the petition on this issue shows just how much people care about it. Many hon. Members have received many emails about it. When I was about to make the decision early in the summer, I received some 50,000 emails and regret that it was impossible to reply to all of them. However, I understand that there is a lot of public concern about the matter.

I commend my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way to so many hon. Members who wanted to speak. I did not anticipate the luxury of having time at the end of this debate, given the numbers present at the beginning; nevertheless, those numbers show just how important this issue is. I have been passionate about it throughout my time as an MP. I worked in the farming industry—we were fruit farmers and we had beehives on the farm—and three years ago I attended an event at which Friends of the Earth launched its “Bees Needs” campaign. It was a great campaign aimed at encouraging schools and people in towns and across the country to invest and help habitats for bees. I may have differences with Friends for the Earth about elements of the neonicotinoid debate, not least the emergency authorisations that I approved earlier this year—I will return to that—but I commend its work to raise awareness of the plight of our bees.

A number of hon. Members have talked about the reasons for the decline. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) suggested that the evidence was absolutely clear that the decline in the bee population could be linked directly to neonicotinoids, and neonicotinoids alone. That is an over-simplification. The reality is that we have seen declining bee populations since the mid-1950s. The reasons for the decline in our bee populations are many, varied and complex. We believe that a large element is loss of habitat, particularly the loss of wild, traditional flowering meadows. We have lost hedgerows, which are an important habitat for bees, particularly bumblebees.

We have also seen problems with disease, and sometimes stress makes bees more susceptible to disease. We have had varroa and hive mites, and a linked problem is that many of our honeybees are imported from countries such as Italy. Those bees are not genetically disposed to survive winters here in the UK so we often have winter losses. Indeed, in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is nodding—there is a project to reintroduce the native black bee. It is more resilient and produces less sugar, but keeps more of it for itself during the winter months so that it can survive.

Neonicotinoids are a relatively recent group of chemicals so we cannot directly attribute the decline in the bee population just to them. If hon. Members are serious about wanting to help bees, as I am, we must look at the wider picture, which is exactly what we have sought to do with our pollinator strategy. Just a few weeks ago, I launched the implementation plan to start moving that strategy forward. It includes a range of issues, such as commissioning new evidence so that we can better understand the pressures on our bees, and looking at integrated pest management.

Some hon. Members have suggested a different approach that does not rely on pesticides. I absolutely agree. In the decades ahead we are likely to see reduced reliance on chemical pesticides, probably the use of genetic technologies so that we can breed disease resistance directly into crops, and an alternative approach to husbandry, sometimes going back to the skills of rotation, which to some extent have been lost in modern farming, to reduce the build-up of pests, disease and weeds in the first place. We call that integrated pest management, and DEFRA hosts the voluntary initiative organisation, whose primary focus is encouraging the development of integrated management so that over time we will be able to reduce our reliance on chemical pesticides.

On neonicotinoids and authorisation of pesticides more generally, it is important to recognise that pesticides are tightly regulated. Active substances are approved at EU level only if they meet safety requirements. The UK is responsible for authorising products containing approved active substances and we carry out thorough assessment of the scientific evidence, drawing on advice from the UK’s independent expert scientists on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which I will return to later. The risks to species such as bees form a key part of the assessment before products are authorised, and the regulatory regime also provides for regular reviews to take account of the latest information and scientific knowledge.

On the specifics of neonicotinoids, the EU introduced restrictions from late 2013 on the use of three neonicotinoids —clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. This debate is nothing if not challenging on diction. The restrictions apply to a wide range of crops that are attractive to bees and cover amateur use—for example, in gardens. Other uses, such as seed treatment for autumn-sown cereals and sugar beet, remain approved. The restrictions are not time limited and remain in place unless the European Commission decides to change them. The Government have implemented the restrictions in full. When imposing them, the Commission acknowledged that the evidence is incomplete and promised to review the science relating to neonicotinoids and bees. That review is now under way and provides an important opportunity to produce an up-to-date assessment of all the scientific evidence. The European Food Safety Authority is carrying out the review and we anticipate that it will conclude its work next summer. The UK will contribute fully to the review as it progresses. We have said throughout that we want it to be firmly grounded on a strengthened scientific evidence base.

The shadow Minister mentioned the very good paper by Professor Charles Godfray and others, which was published in September and was a restatement of all the recent evidence on neonicotinoid insecticides and their effect on pollinators. I commend that report to any hon. Member interested in this issue. It is a very thorough examination of all the research that has been done—laboratory research that looks at the impact on bees of acute poisoning through very high levels of neonicotinoids, but also the beginnings of some of the field trials that have been taking place. There was an interesting field trial in Sweden, for instance. The people involved believed that there could be an impact on bumblebee populations, but not necessarily on honeybee populations.

The paper concludes that this is a very complex issue. Some of the work in Canada, for instance, concludes that there is no big impact on bee populations. However, the big conclusion from the paper is that we need more field-scale trials. That is why the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is at the moment in the UK doing a very large, comprehensive trial, the results of which we should have next spring, and those results will feed into the review currently being carried out by EFSA. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is also doing work in other European countries, so that we can better understand this disease.

Our position is that we will not remove the existing restrictions if the evidence points to the fact that those restrictions should remain. A number of hon. Members have talked about the precautionary principle. We are adopting a precautionary, evidence-based principle. We are very clear, though, that it should be a precautionary principle based on an assessment of risk, not theoretical hazard. That is where sometimes we have a difference of opinion with other European countries, because some of them look just at theoretical hazard rather than a true assessment of risk.

I want to turn now to the emergency authorisations that we made earlier this year, because this is a crucial point. If we want to make a precautionary restriction work, it is essential that we allow there to be some use in extreme cases—some use of emergency authorisations. That is now an established approach that we have. If we want a precautionary approach, over time fewer pesticides will be available on general licence, but as pesticides are removed as a precaution, it is important that we make available the opportunity to grant emergency authorisations. Otherwise we have all sorts of unintended consequences. We force farmers to start to use other chemicals that perhaps have escaped the attention of the scientific community, but are even more damaging. For instance, when the ban first came in, there was some evidence of a shift to using another chemical, called Mesurol, which was dangerous to birds. We then moved to ban that chemical, so we have to consider unintended consequences. We also have to consider the problem of resistance building up to other vital insecticides. For instance, there was growing resistance to overuse of pyrethroids. That is an issue to which we have to be sensitive.

To assess applications for emergency authorisations, we have a group of experts called the Expert Committee on Pesticides. That is a group of 15 academics. They are entomologists, toxicologists, professors and doctors, with unrivalled expertise in pesticides, toxicology and the environment. They give us advice on the applications that we receive for emergency authorisations.

It might be worth my pointing out that the use of emergency authorisations has grown in line with the withdrawal of pesticides for use on a general licence. In 2012, member states of the European Union granted a total of 193 emergency authorisations. Just 14 were from the UK in that year, making 7% of the total. In 2015, the number of emergency authorisations in the EU grew to 414, but only 11 emergency authorisations were granted in the UK, representing just 3% of all emergency authorisations made in the European Union. I therefore put it to hon. Members that far from being cavalier about this, the UK has a proven track record of showing more caution and being more thorough in the way it assesses those applications. The growth in applications is no surprise, because if products are withdrawn from the market, there will be an increase in the number of emergency authorisations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend the Minister any idea, in forecast terms, when we might know definitively what is killing off our bee population?

[George Eustice]

My general experience of these things is that the more science we have, the more evidence gaps get identified, so we never actually have a perfect picture and all we can ever do is make the best judgment we can with the science that we have. However, I do believe that much of the work that is being done—for instance, by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—will mean a big increase and big improvement in our understanding of neonicotinoids in the future. Some of the work that we are commissioning as part of our national pollinator strategy will also assist in that process.

I want to turn now to the specific emergency authorisations in relation to the three neonicotinoids. We had two applications: one for Cruiser and one for Modesto; they were the products in question. The first application from the National Farmers Union asked for an authorisation covering 79% of the area of England. The conclusion, which was published, of the Expert Committee on Pesticides was that although it acknowledged that there was a problem with cabbage stem flea beetle in particular that could not be controlled by other means, it believed that an authorisation covering 79% of the country did not satisfy the requirement of its being strictly confined and restricted. For that reason, it recommended refusal of the first application. I accepted that: I refused the first application.

There was subsequently a second application from the NFU, bringing much more detailed evidence from agronomists of the impact on the ground of cabbage stem flea beetle in particular, county by county. On the basis of that, it put in an application for use over 5% of the English area, which roughly represented the area of Suffolk, which had suffered particularly badly. The Expert Committee on Pesticides assessed that second application and concluded that it satisfied all the requirements, so it recommended that we approve that emergency authorisation and that is what we did.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Gray, and a huge honour to start the debate, which was triggered not by any Member of the House but by the great British public; 115,000 people have signed an e-petition, which reads:

“We call for an end to slaughter without pre-stunning for all animals. EU and UK law requires all animals to be pre-stunned before slaughter to render them insensible to pain until death supervenes. But non-stun slaughter is permitted for certain communities.

We support BVA, RSPCA, HSA, FAWC and FVE who conclude that scientific evidence shows that non-stun slaughter allows animals to perceive pain and compromises welfare.

We must differentiate between religious and non-stun slaughter. Our concern does not relate to religious belief but to the animal welfare compromise of non-stun slaughter.

We note—

over 80% of UK Halal slaughter is pre-stunned—

hindquarters of animals killed by (non-stun) Shechita can enter the market unlabelled.

While non-stun slaughter is permitted we call for clearer slaughter-method labelling and post-cut stunning to improve welfare.

Non-stun slaughter affects millions of animals. We support a good life and a humane death for all animals.”

Under rules recently introduced in the House, the signing of an e-petition by more than 100,000 people facilitates a debate in Westminster Hall. That is a good system, because it means Parliament debates issues that are of concern to everyone. Whatever our views, I hope we all agree on the need for such debates; and where else should the issues be debated, if not here? I hope that today’s debate will generate more light than heat. The issue is a contentious one for many Members and many of our constituents, but it generates much interest. I contend that an overwhelming number of people want non-stun slaughter in this country to be ended.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be blunt. If my throat were going to be cut, I would prefer to be stunned. I have seen what happens to pigs when their throats are cut, and it made my heart bleed—if that is not a pun. It is disgraceful that animals in this country are not pre-stunned before slaughter.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for the vast majority of his constituents. Indeed, a recent YouGov poll, commissioned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, shows that, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, people have strong feelings on the issue. Seventy-seven per cent. of the people surveyed agreed that the practice of non-stun slaughter should be banned, with no exceptions. However, perhaps we can all agree that the debate is not as simple as we might imagine. The same poll also highlighted that there is a great deal of confusion about non-stun slaughter. Half of British people—51% of the people polled—believe that all halal meat is from animals that are not pre-stunned. In fact 80% of halal meat is from animals stunned before slaughter.