Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

5. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the proposals in the European Union Referendum Bill relating to disapplication of purdah.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission has set out in its briefings on the European Union Referendum Bill why it does not agree with the disapplication of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as proposed in the legislation being considered by this House. The commission’s briefing papers on the legislation are circulated to hon. Members and published on its website.

[Mr Burrowes]

Does my hon. Friend expect the Government formally to respond to the helpfully clear advice that

“there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument”?

If so, can it be published?

[Mr Streeter]

I am not aware of any legal duty for the Government to respond to any recommendations made by the Electoral Commission, but I was pleased to hear earlier this week that the Government appear to be moving in the direction of the advice given by the commission. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a tenacious warrior on this issue, will welcome that.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his persistent campaigning for stronger regulation of the sale of puppies and kittens. As many hon. Members have said, puppy farming is a horrendous business. Dogs are kept for their whole lives in often small, dark and filthy kennels, and they are used essentially as breeding machines. They have no chance to express their normal behaviours, and many suffer from untreated illnesses. Such farms really are factory farms for dogs. We need to grasp the opportunity to put an end to the barbaric practice of puppy and kitten farming once and for all.

We know that there are some key measures that we could decide to take that would make significant steps towards achieving that. That is why I want to add my voice to the many others asking the Government to take what steps they can today. I add my strong support for the measures set out in the motion, and I want to pay my own tribute to someone a number of hon. Members have mentioned, who has been a real driving force behind the campaign: the Pup Aid founder and Brighton-based vet Marc Abraham. His contribution to ending puppy farming and to animal welfare more generally is hugely impressive, and he has helped to assemble a formidable coalition, about which we have already heard a lot, including Blue Cross, the Dog Rescue Federation, the Dog Advisory Council, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and the RSPCA. Added to that, as we know, the latest figure for the number of people who have signed the petition is about 125,000, so the strength of feeling across the country that we should be doing more to act is clear.

As a rescue dog owner myself—I got that dog from a wonderful RSPCA centre in Brighton—I want to add my voice to those of the many Brighton residents who have taken the time to write to share their concerns about puppy farming, and often to share their photographs, too.

I want to mention a vet whom I have been speaking to. It concerned me that she said that in her experience, the problem is actually becoming significantly worse. In her view, it will not change without some kind of intervention or regulation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about puppy farming. Banning puppy sales is one way of tackling the problem, but is that not just the tip of the iceberg? We need to consider the issue of supply, at the core of which is transportation from other jurisdictions. Should we not look at proper enforcement against the cruel transportation of puppies?

[Caroline Lucas]

I certainly agree that we need to do that. My slight concern is that although some hon. Members are asking us to examine other issues, which we certainly should, that should not be at the expense of doing what we can here today. I completely take on board, for example, what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said about animals coming from other jurisdictions or via the internet, which may be a harder nut to crack right now. However, that should not mean that we do not act now to take action on pet shops, garden centres and so on. I agree that that will not be a panacea or a silver bullet, but we can do it relatively straightforwardly. We should do it, because we can do it and it will make a difference.

I was speaking about the vet who had raised with me her concerns about pedigree puppy farming in particular, which can result in particularly grim conditions. Genetic problems range from serious breathing difficulties to chronic, lifelong skin allergies to crippling joint problems. The real concern is that some of those problems, such as obstructive airway syndrome, are seen as normal by those who are willing to put looks and fashion before animal welfare. A price tag of more than £1,000 is not uncommon for breeds such as pugs and bulldogs, and the inevitable outcome is more breeding to meet more demand.

That vet explained to me that in some breeds of bulldogs, the majority of bitches cannot give birth naturally and need a caesarean to deliver puppies. She explained that she had come across breeders who were so willing to put their dogs under repeat surgeries, so that they could keep breeding them for as long as it was profitable, that they literally bred the dogs to death.

Of course, some of the responsibility should stop with the consumers who are willing to pay to purchase dogs from puppy farms and bad breeders. That is why I welcome the fact that the motion mentions the importance of raising awareness. However, I believe that many people are simply not aware of the issue. They do not know that if they buy a puppy from a pet shop, it could have come from the type of grim background that we have described, so raising awareness is massively important.

The role of local authorities is also massively important, and I underline again the importance of ensuring that they are properly resourced to carry out the welfare checks that they have the right to do. However, that does not take away from the fact that the Government need to act as well. The vet that I have been referring to says that she does not believe the problem is

“likely to go away anytime soon without some kind of intervention or regulation.”

I believe that there is a case for overwhelming action today. The fact that we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the strength of feeling throughout the House and the country and swiftly take the measures that are within their power.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

1. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the recent data-matching exercise in the movement towards individual voter registration.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The dry-run exercise to prepare for the introduction of individual elector registration involved matching all entries on the electoral registers against the database of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Commission’s report on progress stated that, although there was still a great deal of work to be done, sufficient progress had been made for us to press ahead with the historic change to IER, which will take place in June 2014. It will enhance individual voter responsibility and the security of, and confidence in, the electoral registration system, and—this is extremely important—it means that for the first time those who are eligible to join the electoral register will be able to do so online.

[Mr Burrowes]

What my constituents want is reassurance that the introduction of IER will bring about that greater security when a person enters the register, and that it will bring down electoral fraud and bring up confidence in the electoral system.

[Mr Streeter]

I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. IER will certainly increase the robustness of our democratic system, because a national insurance number and date of birth must be given before anyone can enter the register. For many people it will be easier to get on to our register because it can be done online. Particularly for younger people, who are a hard-to-reach group, the ability to enter the register online, with the necessary information, is a very good thing.

Dangerous Dogs

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

I welcome the debate and come to it with a number of interests. As a criminal defence solicitor for more than 14 years, I have defended many a so-called dangerous dog and have seen for myself the failings of the legislation. The winners are either the lawyers or the animal experts who deal with the not so simple issue of whether a pit bull is a pit bull. I have employed the wisdom of many such an expert in many a long trial. The legislation often fails the victims of the attacks that we have heard so much about.

I have a more immediate interest in the debate, as two weeks ago my Labrador was attacked in our local park by a Staffordshire bull terrier. My Labrador ended up in the local animal hospital. My family were around at the time. Thankfully it was only the dog who was attacked, and no one else. I have great respect for Staffies, which are great family pets, and I do not wish to demonise them. Indeed, it is important not to demonise breeds—sadly, a result of previous legislation. The owner of the Staffy had said, “He may look ferocious, but he is a lovely family pet and no problem at all.” No sooner had he said that then his dog set upon our Labrador.

The owner was shocked that his dog was capable of the attack, which reminds us that the heart of the debate is responsible dog ownership. Any dog is capable—given the moment, time or provocation—of causing injury. There needs to be particular responsibility for some breeds, such as some terriers and Staffies. That is why this issue goes far beyond legislation into our culture and attitude towards dogs. We all know that in many cases we are dealing with a dangerous owner rather than a dangerous dog, and we need to find ways to tackle the issue.

I also speak on behalf of my constituents. Increasingly typical in the constituencies represented in the Chamber, particularly in London, are a growing number of so-called status dogs roaming around parks without proper responsible ownership. Many of our constituents, whether families with young children or responsible dog owners, will not go into parks because they are worried about being attacked. That is unacceptable and we need to do something about it.

[Caroline Nokes]

I want to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to some work done by the Dogs Trust over the past few years encouraging responsible dog ownership, improving education and particularly working with disadvantaged young men to encourage them to have their dogs neutered and microchipped, and to learn how to handle them. Better education has a massive role to play.

[Mr Burrowes]

I pay tribute to the work of the Dogs Trust, which works locally alongside owners, housing associations, police, schools and across the board to carry out projects, including pilots that need to be extended. In Enfield, in the Parkguard project, two dedicated parks officers make it their business to encounter intimidating-looking dogs—and intimidating owners, probably—and work with them to try to encourage them and teach them how to handle their dog properly. More of that needs to happen.

We need a change in legislation. As a lawyer, I welcome the extension to the definition of private places, having argued the case over whether a place is private or public. I heard recently from the council leader in Enfield that, during the London elections, a German shepherd opened a door into a yard and attacked a canvasser, seriously injuring their arm. That change is needed and makes sense, as does microchipping. The measures must be dealt with proportionately but carefully. Local discretion needs to be inbuilt to enable more dogs—not just puppies—to be chipped.

This is a good start. As a lawyer, I know that identity is a key issue. Many an argument has been had about who really owns a dog and we should not underestimate that issue. However, it is important to go beyond legislation, into prevention. That is why local projects are good. We can develop a general culture about how we handle our dogs carefully.

This is still a nation of dog lovers. However, we must recognise that the nation has changed over the years, especially in London, with different cultures comprising our metropolis. In my patch, for example, many people in the Turkish community have a particular view about dogs, which are not traditionally regarded as pets. We need to show respect and develop people’s education early on, so that they understand how to look after dogs carefully and own them, so that we can truly be a nation of dog lovers.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)on securing today’s debate, which is timely given the Government’s recent announcements. I apologise, Ms Dorries, because I will not be able to stay for the end of the debate; I have to leave early to attend a meeting with a Minister on a constituency matter.

All hon. Members in this Chamber know about irresponsible dog ownership: we see it at first hand in our constituencies. The British Medical Journal estimates that every year in the UK, 250,000 people are bitten by dogs. Since 2006, six children have tragically lost their lives in dog attacks, including the tragic death in 2009 of John Paul Massey in my constituency. Some 400 telecoms workers and more than 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year in the course of their work.

It is not just people who are victims. Hon. Members have mentioned dogs attacking other dogs. Some 100 instances of guide dogs being attacked by other dogs were reported to the Guide Dogs charity last year, affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I shall ask the Minister three questions in the light of the recent announcement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of the announcement by the Home Office yesterday on antisocial behaviour. First, I welcome DEFRA’s statement on extending the law to cover attacks on private property. With 70% of dog attacks taking place in a private home or garden, it is important that the law is extended. However, I am keen that the Minister should say when those measures will be put into force. Will we have to wait until the consultation on microchipping has ended before the law is extended to cover private property? The Government should not wait. I should like them to act now.

I am keen that the Minister should lay out a timetable for the coming into force of the proposals announced yesterday by the Home Office and say what steps he will take to ensure that that proceeds with all urgency. It is vital that, having made such commitments, they are brought in as soon as possible. Every day, we read newspaper stories about attacks in the UK. Delay leaves the public at further risk.

Secondly, with regard to resourcing, including cuts to policing, I am concerned about how effective the DEFRA announcements will be without proper enforcement. Changing policy and giving enforcement agencies the powers that they should have had for a long time is one thing, but it is equally important that the police and others have the resources to enforce the law and deliver results on the ground. Under the 20% police budget cuts, some 16,000 police officers will be taken off our streets. In Liverpool, that will translate to 350 police officers by 2015, which will leave our police force in Merseyside stretched.

What is the Minister’s, and his Department’s, assessment of the impact of police cuts on the enforcement of the new dangerous dogs legislation? What work has the Department done with the Home Office to ensure that, despite the cuts, police forces will still be adequately equipped to tackle irresponsible dog ownership? Thirdly and finally, on compensation to victims, I hope that the Minister is aware that the Ministry of Justice proposes to end criminal injuries compensation scheme payments to dog attack victims in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Only in cases where the dog is purposefully set upon a victim will CICS claims be allowed in future. That means that in cases where the dog owner is uninsured and has no money or assets, postal workers and children who suffer horrific injuries will receive no compensation from any source. Will the minister confirm that this is so? If he cannot, will he engage with colleagues at the MOJ on that?

[Mr Burrowes]

Does the hon. Lady know about the recent and welcome criminal justice legislation, which gives a presumption of compensation for all victims of crime that will extend, particularly in respect of the legislation to cover private property, to most people who are victims of dog attacks? We must prosecute these people and get them before the courts, then people will receive the proper compensation.

[Luciana Berger]

As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s extension of the legislation to cover private property, which hon. Members from all parties have been calling for for a long time. However, if such an attack happens and the owner does not have any assets, under the new proposals advanced by the Ministry of Justice, they will have no recourse to compensation, except in the specific instance where a dog is purposefully set on a victim, as outlined in the document. I am concerned that, under the proposals, someone who sustains an injury—a child or a postal worker—will not be eligible for any criminal compensation, even if there is a prosecution. That text is buried right at the end of the document. I can share a copy of it with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, if he would like to see it. I hope that the Minister responds to the specific points that I have made about the timetable, about the police being able to enforce the new legislation, and about criminal injuries compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

I simply wish to echo some of the points made by my colleagues from London who have spoken already, in particular about gangs and dogs used as weapons. I quote from one of the e-mails that I have received from a constituent:

“I no longer come across normal breeds now”—

this is his impression—

“just staffies and pit bull types. They are everywhere! In the parks where small children play, the dogs are hung on to the trees to strengthen the jaws. They are walked around by intimidating owners and quite frankly it is an epidemic.”

That is only one e-mail, but in the time that I have been an MP I have had a number of constituents contacting me, in particular people who are fearful even of going out of their front door, let alone into a park, because of the aggressive behaviour of some owners, with their deliberate training of dogs to be aggressive and weapon-like.

Hackney council has sought to deal with the problem in a number of ways. It, too, has introduced some controls into the tenancy agreement on the number of pets that people own, although that alone is not a solution. Any irresponsible owner will find ways around most of those measures, which is a point that we must all bear in mind.

As a result of situations such as the one I cited, Hackney council has introduced three new dog control orders, which came into effect from April. One is a dog exclusion order, which enables the council to stop dogs entering certain areas, including children’s playgrounds, sports courts, multi-use games areas and marked pitches when games are in play.

A second order requires dogs to be on leads and prohibits owners from exercising their dogs off the lead on roads, in small parks and gardens, on the canal towpath and in car parks and churchyards. That is an example of how irresponsible dog ownership has affected responsible dog owners. Many dog owners are quite able to control their dog on the canal towpath or in churchyards, for instance, without causing a problem for children at play or other adults. Hackney has felt the need to introduce the orders because of the fear factor and some irresponsible dog owners. We will see how that plays out, but it is a worry to me that we must go that way. I still welcome the move, however, at this point.

A third order requires dogs to be on leads when a request is made to owners. That gives officers the power to request that dogs should be put on leads if they are not under appropriate control or if they are causing damage or acting aggressively. That latter point is the most important, but the key issue, of course, with the new or even with existing powers, is enforcement. We already have the powers in Hackney to issue fines for dog fouling in public, for instance, but when I talk to constituents about that there is a certain cynicism about the likelihood of enforcement. Some of the people who are intent on using their dogs as weapons will not be where the dog wardens are. If they see the dog wardens, they will tend to disappear.

Good dog owners will do all the things that are required anyway. I am in favour of microchipping and think that the arguments have been well put today. Microchipping is a good thing. On its own, it is not a solution; it is something that good owners will do, but the bad owners, who breed and sell, will not play that game.

There have been proposals about exclusive dog breeders, and about being able to buy only from some licensed dog breeders. I would be wary of that approach, which it seems to me would create a sort of cartel. It would be difficult to control what happened, especially in rural areas where dogs are born without being, shall I say, planned and bred in the same way as elsewhere. I mean that I know farmers here who tell me that one in seven dogs is likely to become a sheep dog; they do not know which, when they are born, so of course they tend not to keep them all.

I welcome the fact that Hackney has taken on such important powers; however, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has made some sensible and reasonable points about what Parliament needs to do. There is clearly cross-party support for some measures, but we need to work, as the hon. Gentleman said, on ensuring that the Bill is put together properly. We have seen what seemed like the benefits of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. There was a lot of support for it. The danger is that we chase the headlines and pick up the bad examples, without thinking of the consequences.

We need to tease through every consequence to see what the impact will be on different areas of our constituencies, and on our constituents. It may be early for the Minister to reflect on this, but there can be a danger of including in primary legislation things that can be changed only with further primary legislation. The legislation may need to be adapted for the future use of dogs, and we need it to enable minor changes to be made through regulation, once the basic principles are established. That will give the Government and Parliament the freedom to change the law and adapt and adjust it as new breeds come to fruition, or as people try to use dogs in new ways. I feel strongly about that. We cannot wait for primary legislation if we do not get things right, or the situation changes.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the points that the hon. Lady has made, about things that affect London communities as well as the rest of the country.

The Government have made a proposal about kennelling costs, and ways to make the action that is taken proportionate. I know as a solicitor how long dogs effectively await trial. The cost of that, just in London, is £2.75 million. If we can deal proportionately with dogs that will not be a risk, that must be welcome. If dogs are a risk they need to be on bail conditions, so to speak, of muzzling and a lead, and so forth.

[Meg Hillier]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was just about to move on to the issue of the cost of kennelling. Responsible owners—and irresponsible ones—can contribute to that, but it is a cost to Londoners, and I think the money would be better spent on enforcement. We need to consider all the consequences. At the moment, because of the breed-based nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is difficult for the police to establish what they need to, and it takes them a long time. In my constituency there are higher priorities for police funding than kennelling, so we need to think about how the issue is tackled.

We clearly have a cross-party consensus and agree that we want to proceed positively. I hope that the Minister will take our suggestions in good part, and work with me and others who have an interest in ensuring that responsible dog owners can enjoy their dogs, and that other people will not be made afraid because of those who are irresponsible.

Rio+20 Summit

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I apologise for missing some of this excellent debate, but it was for a good reason. I was meeting representatives of Christian Aid, who are very interested in the debate having been much engaged in this issue; indeed, a briefing was sent to hon. Members. They reminded me that this week the high-level UN Commission on Sustainable Development published a report that set the parameters for April’s G20 meeting of Ministers on sustainable energy. That is a very important meeting that will set the ground for the Rio summit. I invite the Minister to respond positively in seeing Rio as a practical way of following up the meeting to ensure that there is genuine progress.

As we approach Rio—we all say this in grand terms, but it is true—we have the opportunity to shape the future of not just one generation but several generations, and they are growing generations. We now have 7 billion people on the planet. In 1992, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, so there has been an increase of 1.5 billion in just 19 years—an increase equivalent to the total global population in 1900. That is the amazing level of growth that is taking place. Those 7 billion people are affected by the global economic crisis, in many cases very much so, but also by the environmental crisis facing this generation and future generations. This Government, and other Governments, have an excellent opportunity to make the case that we can tackle these economic and environmental challenges. The dramatically increasing population means that our natural resources cannot cope. There has been an increase of nearly 150% in real-terms commodity prices, and each year 44 million people are driven into poverty by rising food prices, with food and water scarcity causing civil unrest and war.

The Government, together with non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid, are rightly taking the lead on this, and civil society is very active. More significant, and more sustainable in some ways, is the lead taken by businesses, including British businesses. Unilever wants within 10 years to double its size, halve its carbon footprint for production and source all raw materials sustainably. Rolls-Royce is reducing carbon emissions and saving £26 million per year. I understand from DEFRA that UK businesses could save £23 billion per year by using raw materials, energy and water more efficiently.

While we undoubtedly see great challenges in the increasing global population, we also see great opportunities in the global market for low-carbon and environmental goods and services, which are worth some £3 trillion and growing at 5% per year. Green issues and economic issues are not divorcees but marrieds, with the foundation of their marriage being natural capital. We need to put the value of nature at the heart of the marriage between the economy and the environment. The Government are right to promote green accounting and the auditing of the nation’s rivers, forests and other landscapes. The ecosystems analysis started under the previous Government and followed up under this Government is one of the best pieces of literature to come out of Government, and it is of wonderful value. It is a useful tool for us domestically and a model that can be adopted by other countries that recognise its value—indeed, its financial value. We all know the cost of ignoring nature, and it is therefore important to put a price on nature. I hope that that will be followed through at the Rio summit.

We are debating the resources that we want to invest in preparation for the Rio summit. Those resources are important and they must go to the right place. They must lead to action, not just talk. Other hon. Members have spoken about that.

The proposals for sustainable development goals that came out of Colombia and Guatemala have been commended and adopted. They are an important way forward. They are practical and will lead to action, rather than just to more talk about targets and goals. They mirror the millennium development goals. That approach is important, because it means that at Rio there is the prospect not just of fine-sounding statements and communiqués and green-sounding rhetoric, which we saw a lot of in 1992 as well as the international agreements, but of action. The sustainable development goals align properly with practical realities and priorities at national level and will drive things forward.

We must also put out some warning signals. In 2000, seven millennium development goals came out of the process and suddenly people said, “What about the environment as a goal?” They then went back into the conference and came up with an eighth development goal. We need to ensure that we align the sustainable development goals with the millennium development goals. They need to coalesce. More than that, the sustainable development goals that come out of Rio should act as a catalyst to ensure that the millennium development goals are achieved. We do not want a parallel universe with different development goals. They need to work together properly.

To put it in a straightforward way, we need to improve the situation for the poorest communities across the globe. We must banish the need for young people to go miles and miles to forage for firewood in forests. We must ensure that there is sustainable energy so that young people do not need to do that, but can instead go into education and help to meet the millennium development goals.

I welcome the Government’s approach of bringing in business, which has been mentioned by hon. Members. As I have said, businesses are taking the lead. The Secretary of State has invited businesses to put forward their ideas. The businesses that are doing things such as sustainable accounting and that are taking the lead in this country should also be invited to take the lead in Rio and to make the case. If we make the case, together with business, for a green and sustainable economy, we can be optimistic that Rio will lead to action for the benefit of the world’s children, and indeed their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Public Forest Estate (England)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

Page 20 of the document talks about experience from other countries and cites the privatisation of forests in Russia and central Africa, and the need to tailor our approach to the national context. I am still trying to work out—perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us in her speech—in what ways England’s national context is similar to that of Russia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, whose economy has been shattered by seven years of war and where one in five children die before their fifth birthday—[Interruption.] It is a country that I have visited and about which I care a great deal. I care about the natural timber resources of the Congo and I know that the Government give money to protect them, but the Congo is not the model that we should use as an excuse for privatising our forests.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is not the point that many of us would be happy to chain ourselves to trees and forests, but not to the structure and jobs of the Forestry Commission?

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has got against those dedicated public servants, but when I met them they were very concerned about the 270 jobs that will go instantly in the Forestry Commission and about how woodland will be managed with 25% fewer staff. They were concerned about how national diseases, such as sudden oak death, will be managed and about the loss of a critical mass of expertise from the Forestry Commission. The hon. Gentleman derides that concern as if it were all about jobs for the boys and girls. It is not: those workers care about the forests, which is more than can be said for the Conservatives.