Badger Cull

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) to propose the motion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Lady will deliver her speech from a sedentary position. I commend her for coming to the House today; we appreciate that she is recovering from surgery. Given that she is speaking from an unaccustomed position and without the usual aid of an ability to bob up and down or otherwise gesticulate, the delivery of her speech will be more difficult than it would be if she were in her customary position. I am sure that the House will bear that in mind and give her all the support she deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to help the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the House. Today, I received a response from the Minister who is present, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), which clarifies that the report has just arrived on the Secretary of State’s desk. The pursuant question is why, when it was due to be published in February, it has not been published in time for today’s debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for his point of order. It is not in fact a point of order for the Chair, but it is a point that the House has noted. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has been helpful in providing information to the House.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always understood it to be a convention of this House that if any Member quoted from a document in the public domain, the document should be tabled before the debate, to be available to every hon. Member so that they, too, may quote from it. I do not believe that the document is yet in the public domain—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That rule applies to Ministers; it does not apply to a Back Bencher addressing the House.

The matter is now at an end. The hon. Member for St Albans is referring to the report, which may come up and be debated for the rest of the afternoon; it is not for the Chair to rule on where the report ought to be. The hon. Lady is quoting from it, and I am sure that Members will listen carefully to what she is saying. They will then be able to deal with her points, with or without the report before them.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) must be psychic, because my next words were to be that no one appears to be disputing the comprehensive but leaked report. Whatever the detail, the dispute is about whether we pursue a failed policy, or adopt a new one.

As Professor Rosie Woodroffe, a scientist at the Zoological Society of London, said, the

“findings show unequivocally that the culls were not effective”.

I know that hon. Members say, “We haven’t seen the reports”, but that is not in dispute, unless the Minister whose desk the report has landed on says that it is not in the report. If so, I look forward to hearing it, but I believe what has been widely reported in the media after being leaked comprehensively.

I hope that the Secretary of State will now focus on other ways of eradicating TB in cattle. If predictions of the findings in the report are borne out, the cull

“has cost a fortune and probably contributed nothing in terms of disease control, which is really unfortunate.”

Those are the words of Rosie Woodroffe.

I am personally disappointed that a DEFRA spokesman has recently said:

“We knew there’d be lessons to be learned from the first year of the pilot culls which is why we’re looking forward to receiving the panel’s recommendations for improving the way they are carried out.”

If the House notes those comments carefully, it cannot hear the sound of any culls being stopped, but simply of them being improved. In other words, we are committed to finding a better killing strategy—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is my phone—someone who obviously does not respect the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. In these unusual circumstances, this incident will be overlooked. As I said at the beginning of the debate, these are unusual circumstances; no other Member may take this as a precedent.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was a badger ringing me up and willing me on.

If the House notes the comments, it will hear talk not of culls being stopped but of their being improved. The Government do not have carte blanche to carry on regardless. Hon. Members may dispute the report and whether it has been leaked, but the Government do not have unconditional support to continue with a failed approach, in particular one that causes suffering to a protected species. As Robin Hargreaves, President of the British Veterinary Association said:

“We have always stated that if the pilots were to fail on humaneness then BVA could not support the wider roll out of the method of controlled shooting”.

There are colleagues who share those views.

The pilot culls were supposed to demonstrate a minimum of 70% of badgers killed within six weeks. Despite the badger population estimates being sharply cut and the culls being extended, both pilots failed to meet the minimum 70%. When both trials duly failed to kill sufficient badgers within the specified period, they were extended on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens. The panel’s widely leaked report, although still disputed today, concerns itself with the initial six weeks. This extended the misery, the cost and, if we accept the time scales based on the original pilot criteria, the range of TB spread due to perturbation.

Do we continue with cruel practices licensed by the Government in order to be seen to be doing something? DEFRA agreed with an expert group the criteria for how the trials could be deemed humane. It was DEFRA’s rules, not some arbitrary figures plucked out of the air. Mark Jones, vet and executive director of the Humane Society International of the UK, said:

“The government’s boast that all badgers were killed cleanly and killed instantly is clearly not true. We fear many badgers may have suffered significant pain and distress.”

Andrew Guest, from the National Farmers Union, said of the revelations: “It doesn't sound good”, but added that it was important that a significant number of badgers had been removed.

Simply getting rid of lots of badgers, regardless of cost, pain or effectiveness, was not the criterion set down by the Government. That is not a good enough reason for this House to support ongoing culls. This House wishes to tackle bovine TB efficiently, effectively and humanely. That is why we need to stop the failed cull policy, not grant any further licences and come up with a better method to tackle TB without inflicting pain and misery on an endangered species. The badger culls were condemned as “mindless” in 2012 by Lord Krebs, who commissioned the 10-year study. The extensions to the culls were criticised by Natural England’s lead scientific director, Sir David Attenborough, and the National Trust.

We acknowledge the devastation inflicted on farmers and cattle by the scourge of bovine TB. This should not be about the House abandoning their plight, but neither can we ignore the plight of the badgers. Monitoring reports from England’s wildlife watchdog, Natural England, apparently seen by The Guardian and perhaps hotly disputed by some hon. Members, show that a third of the badgers were shot in the wrong part of the body. Apparently, badgers are very hard to shoot, although I would not know as I am not a marksman. Two out of nine badgers had to be shot twice, having not died instantly.

Professor Woodroffe, who worked on a landmark 10-year study of badger culling, said the conclusion to be drawn was simple:

“The pilot culls have not been effective.”

She questioned the multi-million pound cost of the culls and argued that badger vaccination would be cheaper and more effective. So our argument today is probably leading us towards vaccination of badgers and/or cattle. The current available vaccine for badgers, which is injectable, has been shown to reduce the burden of disease in badger populations. An oral badger vaccine is not expected until 2015. I know there is some concern that vaccines may not be as effective as we would hope, or be licensed and come on line quickly enough, but if the current shoot-to-kill approach is also deeply flawed we should endeavour to strengthen and prioritise all the non-lethal methods in order to find a humane solution.

Many hon. Members and wildlife lovers believe that is the only way forward, unless we are to decide to keep slaughtering badgers in perpetuity to eliminate a reservoir of TB in badgers, many of which will have been infected by other species or cattle. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth told the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) in DEFRA questions that the Government

“'accepts that there is a range of measures we should pursue, including developing vaccines, and we are doing some work to develop an oral vaccine for badgers as well as on cattle vaccines. We are considering other measures such as contraception for badgers and increased cattle movement controls, so we are covering a range of issues as we try to solve this difficult problem.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 998.]

That answer shows that the Minister recognises the value of these other strands of TB control, and I hope that he will commit today to redoubling his efforts on those fronts. Today, we need to urge the Government not only to speed up their work on vaccines, particularly of the oral kind, and redouble their efforts on enforcing biosecurity and cattle movements, but, most importantly, to stop this inhumane slaughter of badgers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call speakers from the Back Benches, may I say that it will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak this afternoon and so, as a courtesy to other Members, it would be helpful if Members limited their speeches to about eight or nine minutes? If they do so, everyone will have the chance to be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

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

[Angela Smith]

Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

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

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

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

Flooding

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members must allow the Secretary of State to conclude his speech.

[Mr Pickles]

I am most grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, this Government will take whatever action is necessary to defend our nation from the forces of nature, and will prepare for the threats that it faces in years to come.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As the House will be aware, a great many Members wish to speak, and there is a limited amount of time. I must therefore impose a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the next speaker, I must explain to the House that my arithmetic is not wrong, but when Members take interventions, the time limit for speeches increases. Speeches have been considerably in excess of eight minutes, so I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

It is right to begin with the human cost of flooding. My constituency is no stranger to flooding, and the devastation to home owners and businesses is incredible, which is why we need a clear policy, supported and understood by Members on both sides of the House, whichever party is in government, that gives the public confidence that the Government will provide the investment in flood protection that is necessary to minimise the risks.

In his speech the Secretary of State seemed to make the case that because a substantial number of Government Back Benchers got up to thank him for putting investment into flood protection measures, all was fine. [Interruption.] He says he did not mean that, but he certainly advanced the argument that many people were grateful for flood protection measures. So, too, am I. We had a hiatus with one particular scheme in York after the new Government came in, but it is now going ahead, thanks to funding from the Environment Agency and our local City of York council. But the budget for flood alleviation measures has fallen from the time this Government came to power in 2010 from something like £650 million a year to something like £550 million a year. There would be more Members getting to their feet to thank the Secretary of State, as I have done and as other Members have done, if that additional £100 million a year had been spent.

Back on 9 January at DEFRA questions the Secretary of State claimed falsely that the coalition Government were spending more on flood protection than the Labour Government had spent. I challenged him, quoting figures that his Department had given to me in answer to a parliamentary question in July last year, pointing out that spending was in fact down by £113 million from what it was at the time of the general election. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gratuitously accused me of being a slow learner, because I had the cheek to challenge his slippery figures, and he repeated his bogus claim that

“this Government are providing more”—

for flood protection—

“than any previous Government in the current spending review.—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 440.]

I was appalled at this statement. I tabled a further parliamentary question which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). He gave me a different set of figures, but they confirmed a fall of about £100 million since the general election. I asked the House of Commons Library’s statisticians to comment on the figures that I had received, and they concluded:

“Departmental spending on flood defences in 2011-15 will be lower than it was in 2007-11 in both nominal and real terms”.

I therefore went to the UK Statistics Authority to ask whether it agreed with the House of Commons statisticians’ analysis or with DEFRA’s. I quote from the reply that I received last week from the chairman of the authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot. He said:

“The Statistics Authority’s own analysis of the available figures concurs with the conclusions of the note prepared for you by officials in the House of Commons, attached to your letter and subsequently reproduced in a published analytical article. We agree with their finding that, as at January 2014, Government funding for flood defences was expected to be lower in both nominal and real terms during the current spending period than during the last spending period.”

In order to justify his bogus and misleading claims, the Secretary of State did four things which no professional statistician would do: he selected particular time periods which favoured his case; he included estimates for future projected expenditure, when we do not know whether that will actually be spent or not; he added projected and unconfirmed estimates of private investments in flood protection, and showed them as Government expenditure; and he gave cash figures without showing that these were reduced when one took account of inflation.

The Secretary of State’s figures were unprofessional, massaged and spun. This is what Sir Andrew Dilnot had to say about them in his letter to me:

“Defra does not publish figures on flood defence spending as official statistics. There is therefore no obligation for Defra to comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics in relation to these figures. However, given the salience of these figures and the public interest in them, it is my view that it would better serve the public good if Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure by the relevant organisations on aspects of flooding and coastal erosion management”.

There is a solution to the problem of slippery figures changing from one parliamentary answer to another. It is clear that DEFRA cannot be trusted to provide truthful figures in-house. In future, figures on flood protection spending should be provided as official statistics, produced in a quality-assured way and issued by the independent and trustworthy UK Statistics Authority. It is clear that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs misled the public, this House and the Prime Minister, who has been repeating his figures—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to accuse a Government Minister of misleading the House.

[Hugh Bayley]

Well, he gave figures that are being contested by the independent UK Statistics Authority. I wish him a speedy recover—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can find a different way of phrasing the point he wishes to make.

[Hugh Bayley]

I just have found a different way of phrasing it.

I wish the Secretary of State a speedy recovery, but when he returns he should make a statement to the House to apologise for inadvertently misleading us and to confirm that figures issued on flood protection will in future be provided as official statistics from the UK Statistics Authority. [Interruption.] If he wants to apologise to me for his gratuitous insult, I will accept an apology at that time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not need advice from Members on the time limit—I can count.

Water Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that a significant number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate and there is not a long time left before the Front Benchers will conclude it. If hon. Members were to limit their speeches to approximately 10 minutes, everyone who wished to speak would have the opportunity to do so. If hon. Members do not do that, in the near future I will have to impose a time limit on speeches.

Ash Dieback Disease

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We have worked very closely with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to ensure that they are aware of what we are doing and that they can take appropriate decisions on what ought to be done. The Forestry Commission works across the border with its counterparts in Scotland to ensure that all scientific information is shared. I am absolutely clear that they will have all the knowledge we have in dealing with this case. I do not think there is any shortage of information.

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

The House has heard what the Minister said about his Government not second-guessing the international consensus and not being impeded by the EU, but does he not understand the annoyance of my constituents, who care about our precious, ancient Epping forest, at the EU’s lack of action on biocontrol? While EU officials are wasting their time and our money trying to interfere with the work of UK hairdressers, who do not need protection, they are doing nothing for our ancient forests, which need protection from airborne diseases and diseases imported from Europe. Why has the EU not taken action, and will he do all he can to ensure that it does so?

Dangerous Dogs

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Laing]

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

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate and on the work that she has done. Does she agree that criminal injuries compensation must be examined? I had a young constituent who suffered very bad injuries, and unfortunately she has not received any compensation whatever because it was deemed that there was no intent. Nobody set the dog on her, so she has had no compensation.

[Mrs Laing]

That is a very valid point, and when the Minister and his colleagues examine the consultation responses that they have received, I hope that they will consider the possibility of requiring insurance for dogs. The totally inadequate compensation that is being paid to my constituent’s family—£450 at a rate of £50 a month—does not even begin to cover the loss that they have endured through both the mother and father taking time off work, the costs of going to hospital and so on. Of course, they are thinking not about the money but about the health of their little daughter, but it is our duty to consider that side of things as well. I hope the Minister can give those matters adequate consideration.

I pay tribute to the many charities and organisations that campaign on such issues and that have taken part in the Government’s consultation. Since it was known that this debate would take place, I have been flooded with information by well-meaning and well-organised institutions that have taken the matter seriously for some time. I acknowledge their help and am sorry that I cannot mention all their points in the time available—I note that we have another hour and three quarters to go, but I shall limit my remarks to a reasonable length.

I pay tribute in particular to the Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, and the Communication Workers Union and its “Bite Back” campaign. Not surprisingly, there are calls from all sectors of society that we must do something.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. I mentioned to her before the debate that new dog legislation is being introduced in Northern Ireland in April. It will introduce many changes, including the compulsory microchipping of dogs. Will the hon. Lady comment on that? Dog owners in Northern Ireland already pay for an annual dog licence, but The Daily Telegraph columnist and former vet, Pete Wedderburn, stated:

“It seems to me that the Northern Ireland”

legislation

“might be effective at achieving some of DEFRA’s key goals: to allow better enforcement of the law and ensure that dog owners take responsibility for their animals.”

Is this the time to put Northern Ireland’s legislation into what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing and to put matters right?

[Mrs Laing]

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

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

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

[Angela Smith]

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

[Mrs Laing]

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

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

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

I thank the hon. Lady for graciously giving way and for securing this debate on this crucial issue. Since 2006, 11 people have lost their lives because of dangerous dogs, and around 5,000 are hospitalised every year. She mentioned the Smith family, but she may know of the tragic death of John-Paul Massey in my constituency. Like the Smith family, Angela McGlynn, John-Paul’s mother, has campaigned on the issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need urgent legislation and changes so that the police, local authorities and dog wardens can take preventive action so that we see no more needless deaths?

[Mrs Laing]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. I am sure that the whole House sends its heartfelt sympathy to the family of those little children who have died.

It is tragic. If in any other area of life we discovered that in the past three years or so six children and two adults had been viciously killed, we would take action, but because we are a nation of dog-lovers, we say, “Oh, but we must think about the dogs and look after the dogs.” Yes, of course we must look after dogs, but six little children have died, and we must look after the children first and the dogs second. I know that I will get hate mail from subscribers to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for saying that, but I will say it again: we must put the safety and lives of children and other vulnerable people first, and dogs second. Having said that—I will deal with this in more depth later—it is dogs that are badly treated by their owners that behave badly towards other people. Dogs that are cared for, looked after and loved do not normally cause the sort of trouble that we are discussing.

I was also shocked to discover that blind people, who depend on guide dogs, are suffering as a result of the increase in the number of vicious dogs in our country today, because guide dogs are being attacked by vicious dogs that are badly behaved and out of control. What worse situation can anyone imagine than a blind person, dependent on a loving and caring labrador, having that little labrador attacked by a pit bull-type dog that is out of control? It is totally unacceptable, and action must be taken sooner rather than later.

[Luciana Berger]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the number of attacks on guide dogs has more than doubled in the past year, having risen from three to seven attacks every month? The training and cost of a guide dog over its lifetime is about £50,000. That training is run by a charity, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, that receives no state support for the work it does. Does she share my concern about the cost of those attacks to those people who depend on their dogs and the charity?

[Mrs Laing]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Angela Smith]

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

[Mrs Laing]

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

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

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

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

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

[Luciana Berger]

We should also consider the cost to the police of kennelling dogs while investigations are under way. According to figures that I obtained through a freedom of information request, the kennelling costs incurred by just 26 of our police forces in a single year were close to £4 million.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is utterly appalling that taxpayers’ money is wasted on a scheme that is not having the right effect. It is not controlling the number of so-called status dogs and weapon dogs, it is not preventing 6,000 postmen and 5,000 ordinary citizens from being attacked every year, and it is not saving the lives of children. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to my view. I hope that the impassioned pleas that are being made this evening will increase his power when he negotiates with his colleagues, and will enable him to act quickly to deal with all the matters that I have raised.

[Jim Shannon]

There are more than 10 million dogs in the United Kingdom. If DEFRA adopted compulsory microchipping, coloured tags and dog licences, as Northern Ireland has, £125 million of income would be created.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have not had time to go into the details of the microchipping scheme this evening. I hope it will be noted that, although I have spoken for about half an hour, I have given way to all who have sought to intervene because I appreciate the support that they have given.

I believe that a properly organised system would be self-financing. I also believe that all responsible dog owners would consider the small extra expense a very small price to pay for the protection of their dogs—and other people—from dogs that behave badly. The people who ignored the law, those who would not bother to microchip their dogs and would not register them, are the very people who neglect their dogs and train them to behave wrongly and viciously, and they are the very people who would be caught after breaking the law.

I appreciate that the new laws will work only if they are simple and can be easily and quickly enforced. I hope that the Minister will take some encouragement from what has been said this evening as he considers, along with his colleagues, the results of the Government’s long, detailed and very worthwhile consultation.

I conclude by saying once again that what we have to do is change public attitudes. That has worked in respect of wearing seat belts, using a mobile phone while driving a car and smoking in public places. Some Members and others said those changes could never happen, but they have happened, because public attitudes do change. At present, the balance of public opinion says, “My dog can go where he likes and do what he likes, so you’d better control your child.” From now on, we ought to say, “My child should be safe wherever he goes and whatever he does, so you’d better control your dog.” Dogs are never the problem; it is the owners of dogs who are the problem. All we want is to require all dog owners to behave as good dog owners have always behaved.