Fly-tipping

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

In a moment, I will call Sarah Jones to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates, but I suspect there may be interventions from other colleagues, which of course is perfectly in order.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping.

Fly-tipping is a pernicious and inexcusable form of antisocial behaviour that causes great distress to many of my constituents. I will set out the extent of the problem, highlight some of the fantastic community efforts to address it, and then turn to the potential solutions. I have not secured this debate to score political points. The Minister may have a few pre-prepared lines, but I want this to be a constructive discussion about how we bring about change, and I hope he will respond in the same spirit. Many of my constituents have written to me with fantastic suggestions of what could be done. I am immensely grateful for their ideas and look forward to sharing them in the course of the debate.

Fly-tipping is a persistent and acute problem in Croydon, but it is not just a problem in Croydon. This blight on our communities should not be treated as some inevitable feature of city living—quite the opposite. The statistics show that fly-tipping affects all parts of our country. Around 3,000 incidents of fly-tipping hit communities across England every single day, costing local authorities up to £58 million each year. Worryingly, the mountain of rubbish being heaped on Britain’s streets is growing. Over the past two years, the number of large fly-tips that were tipper lorry-load size or larger has increased by 13%. Whether we live in rolling hills or in a concrete jungle, no one should have their neighbourhood polluted by piles of junk. People in Croydon are angry and frustrated at the persistence of fly-tipping on their streets, from Central Parade in New Addington to Gonville Road in Thornton Heath.

Litter Action Groups

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I will call Mr Virendra Sharma to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, but I understand that there may be a couple of interventions, which have been signalled to the Member who will move the motion, and the Minister is also agreeable to that. I call Mr Sharma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the role that Keep Britain Tidy has played in the whole campaign, not just in one area of the country. I thank her for joining us in this debate as the chair of the APPG.

LAGER Can is identifying hotspots and clearing them. That intelligence and action helps Ealing Council. The group is not just tackling the problem as it presents itself, but working to reduce it in the future.

LAGER Can is partnering with schools and is having a great impact. Khalsa school in Norwood Green in my constituency won the Young Litter Heroes award this year, recognising pupils’ efforts and their commitment to promoting environmental awareness and reducing litter in communities. Khalsa school’s environmental message is about protecting our green spaces, and these brilliant litter heroes will be the next generation, reducing and tackling fly-tipping and littering for good.

Last year, LAGER Can volunteers donated at least 16,506 hours to Ealing Council, saving it approximately £282,000 in 2022, and similar amounts in 2020 and 2021. Of course, this is not a saving—the work just would not have been done without these volunteers, who are performing a valuable service for Ealing Council and everyone who lives in the borough. I declare my interest as one of those volunteers helping in my constituency, in Norwood Green, Southall Green, around the station and in the canal.

LAGER Can is clear and grateful in its words:

“Ealing Council provides excellent support to LAGER Can.”

As part of that support, Ealing Council provides the group with some essentials—litter grabbers, LAGER Can-branded rubbish sacks, work gloves and third-party and employer’s insurance—and ensures the prompt removal and disposal of the rubbish collected, even from private land. A volunteer provided with a litter grabber and a roll of bags will have repaid the council in less than one hour of volunteering—LAGER Can is great value for money.

However, the council does not just offer essentials; it works with LAGER Can. Ealing Council makes engagement a priority, and Cathy and other volunteers are able to speak to key decision makers in the council regularly to make suggestions and understand why decisions are taken. Ealing Council is usually highly responsive to requests made on behalf of members. It is rewarding for LAGER Can members to know that their requests are being taken seriously. Those involved do not agree on everything, but everyone sees the relationship as constructive and valuable, and working together as partners is conducive to good-faith working.

That amazing local example should be available to volunteers everywhere. I know that there are people across the city and around the country willing and ready to do the same, but they run up against bureaucracy time and time again. LAGER Can is part of national groups, and by working with a wide range of people it has identified key areas where the Minister can help other groups to grow. I would therefore like to put four questions and challenges to the Minister.

First, volunteers need more support. In some places, such as Ealing, volunteers are encouraged and nurtured, while, in others, groups are threatened with fines for taking the rubbish they collect to the local tip. The Government could help to co-ordinate the response, with national good-practice support for volunteer litter-picking groups. The savings available are clear to see, and that should surely encourage any of the more sceptical councils.

Secondly, attitudes towards enforcement appear to vary in different parts of the country. In some areas, councils react to fly-tipping by installing more CCTV and imposing more and bigger fines, while other, neighbouring boroughs take a more lenient approach. That only encourages “cross-border” fly-tipping, moving the problem around and leaving offenders to dump their waste in areas where they know that enforcement is weaker. We would like to see a national standard on fly-tipping, as suggested earlier, based on the approach taken by the stricter boroughs, which do not hesitate to name, shame and fine culprits.

Thirdly, the introduction of a deposit return scheme is welcome. That will lead to less littering. However, the failure to include glass bottles is a problem that we can avoid, and it should be rethought. The Government are also taking action on the consumption of nitrous oxide, but the canisters are still a problem. It is difficult to find anywhere to recycle them, although some scrap metal dealers are willing to. The Government should act to ensure that these containers are manufactured in a recyclable way.

Fourthly, there is the issue of wet wipes. The build-up of wet-wipe islands is devastating for wildlife and people. Many fish in our rivers have plastic fibres clogging up their digestive system, and the situation is only getting worse. The plastic fibres are contaminating rivers, and wipes are building up in large numbers on the foreshores of the Thames and other rivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has campaigned tirelessly on that. There must be an end to plastic in wet wipes; I urge the Government to include a ban on it in upcoming legislation.

I am lucky enough to represent an area where there are good news stories that set an example to others. That does not mean that we are without our problems, but I hope that the good practice seen in my area can be emulated, so that there is improvement in other areas. Once again, my congratulations to LAGER Can and Cathy Swift, and many thanks to other hon. Members, including the Minister.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Sharma, for your most uplifting speech.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and of course he is absolutely right; I have no qualms in saying that the list of legislation is quite impressive, with huge achievements that I am very proud of the Government for undertaking. However, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill would be one of the greatest leaps forward in animal welfare that this country has seen in years. It enjoys cross-party support and was part of our election manifesto.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on the progress of the Bill and to hearing him outline what steps his Department is taking to iron out any of the issues that may have arisen throughout the consultation phases, so that we can get the Bill moving again and get it on to the statute book.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on how he has introduced the debate. Before he comes to the end of his peroration, may I say to him that one of the most significant threats to animal welfare in Northern Ireland, believe it or not, is the Northern Ireland protocol? As of the middle of this month, 50% of pharmaceutical products for animals will no longer be available in Northern Ireland, both for on-farm animals and domestic pets. That threat must be urgently addressed by His Majesty’s Government before our animals in Northern Ireland are placed in any further danger.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. Not that long ago, I led a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee on invoking article 16 and it became very clear from the research that we did before the debate that there was a significant impact on animals as a result of the protocol, so I hope that the Minister can also update the House about discussions with EU counterparts on the effect of the protocol on animals.

I also congratulate the hon. Member on getting an intervention in as I was about to finish my speech. To reiterate, I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide the reassurances and updates that so many people have turned up to Westminster Hall today to hear, so that we can get the Bill moving again, get it into law and cement the UK’s reputation as a world leader on animal welfare.

Northern Ireland Border

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is why the UK Government have engaged in negotiations with the European Union to seek important changes. We are motivated solely by our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In so far as the implementation and the interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol by the European Union to date is incompatible with the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, all parties should seek to adopt a more sensible interpretation that brings it back into line with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is what we are endeavouring to do.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Parties have warned for months that there will be a crisis, so no one should be surprised that there is a crisis. I am disappointed by the shadow Minister’s comments, as what he put to the Government today is not honest brokership. This is a serious crisis; it is not about parties in Downing Street.

The Secretary of State says that Minister Poots is entitled to take this advice, which told him that the checks are not lawful. Sinn Féin will not allow a discussion about this in the Executive to try to repair them and make them lawful. Minister Poots therefore has no vires to continue with the operation of the checks. If that is the case, will the Secretary of State affirm that Her Majesty’s Government will not interfere in this process? Will Her Majesty’s Government accept that they must now remove the friction between GB companies and Northern Ireland, as that is where the main problem now rests?

[George Eustice]

I would express it slightly differently, but would say this: the rationale Minister Poots has advanced is that the EU audit that took place and whose findings were published at the end of last year raised some issues that he believed were contentious and therefore potentially a threat to community relations. Therefore, in his view, part of the threshold test for authorisation to be required by the Northern Ireland Executive has been met. He therefore believes that there should be a discussion; to date, under the power-sharing agreement there has not been agreement that it should be discussed, and that has led to the current state of affairs. So it is too early to say what the legal position is. I know it is the position of Edwin Poots that it is not lawful to continue these checks without the express authority of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others may take a different view, but the UK Government very much hope the Northern Ireland Executive can find a resolution to this, and for our part, as the ones who stand behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and are responsible for it and for protecting it, and as the ones who are responsible for international negotiations, we will continue to endeavour through the negotiations with the EU to find an enduring solution.

Water Companies: Sewage Discharge

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 582336, relating to the discharge of sewage by water companies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley, and it is an honour to be leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The petition calls for an outright ban on water companies discharging raw sewage into watercourses. Personally, I think a lot of our constituents will be shocked to hear that it is currently legal for water companies to do this. How can it be okay for multimillion-pound businesses to absolve themselves of the responsibility for ensuring that our rivers and streams, and ultimately our seas, are free of harmful sewage?

I pay tribute to Ferry Harmer, who started the petition after seeing Feargal Sharkey raise some of the issues around the state of our rivers on the TV programme “Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing” last year. I also thank the 111,434 people from around the UK who have taken the time to sign the petition, especially the 186 people from Gower who have signed it. I have had nearly 150 constituents get in touch with me about this issue in one way or another. That demonstrates the strength of feeling about this issue, which has featured recently in the news. When I spoke to Ferry, it was clear he is a man of real passion and determination. He spoke about the petition and told me that 41% of fish species are in decline in British waters. A third of species are in serious decline, including iconic fish such as salmon and trout.

Through my research, I have discovered astounding facts about the state of our rivers and waterways. Some 39 million tonnes of sewage were discharged into the River Thames alone in 2019—that is one river in one year. Last year, raw sewage was discharged into our waters more than 400,000 times, which is quite an incredible figure. This has now become an emergency for our waterways. Not a single river in England is in a healthy condition, not a single river meets a good chemical standard, and over 85% do not meet good ecological standards. Frankly, it is not good enough.

I am fortunate to represent arguably the best coastal community in the UK. The coast around Gower is popular all year round with families and tourists, and a growing number of local wild swimming groups took off during lockdown. It is the only contact that people have with the outside world, and it has been a saviour for so many people. The well-known Mermaids and other groups know that Gower has some of the best surfing in the UK. I will do anything I can to protect our vital ecosystem, seafood production economy and thriving tourist economy. I know that this is a devolved matter, but as I noted in a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, this a UK-wide issue. What work is the Minister doing alongside the devolved Administrations, and what commitment can she give to do so, because these waterways, whether in England, Wales or Scotland, are all intertwined and all end up somewhere?

If sewage goes into our rivers and waterways, it will ultimately make its way to the sea, and even into our food chain through seafood and fish. I know we are all supposed to encourage recycling, but even I think that is going a little too far. The Government are failing in their duty of care here. The state of our waterways has not improved since 2016, despite ministerial claims that they are cleaning up their act. What is even worse, the unlawful discharge of sewage could be up to 10 times higher than the rate of prosecutions by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of water quality breaches, but it has fallen foul of the Government’s cuts; its funding has been slashed by 63% since 2010. Simple measures such as the number of points at which samples are collected have been cut by more than 40%. How can we continue to monitor the health of our rivers if less data is collected?

The Government’s response to the petition mentions that

“water companies have agreed to make available real-time data on sewage discharges from storm overflows at designated bathing waters all year round from this year. This data will be made available to help surfers, swimmers and other recreational water users to check the latest information and make informed choices on where to swim.”

Who does not want to check the amount of human waste, used sanitary products and anything else people have flushed into the water before they go for a swim? That is not a delightful thought. Let us not forget the words of the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who back in 2018 told the Environmental Audit Committee that divergence from tough EU rules would be an opportunity for the UK Government to implement unquestionably tougher restrictions. He said that

“being different can sometimes mean being better”,

and that leavers did not automatically advocate for divergence out of a desire to lower standards. However, owing to Brexit, we have seen a shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers and an increase in red tape, which has led to chemicals not being available to fully treat wastewater before it is discharged. What is more, the Government have granted permissions for the discharges to take place.

I am not here only to outline the increasing problems that the Government are exacerbating, because I have received suggestions of things that the Government could put into place to reverse some of the damage. To clean up our waterways, we need a fully funded and resourced action plan. We need targets for water companies and serious consequences when they break the rules. One way of doing that is to increase the environmental reporting requirement for water companies. I call on the Government to improve their plan to introduce annual reports, such as by making them quarterly reports. With more regular reporting and a system that allows for this, we can see where there are problem areas and react much more efficiently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to have the opportunity to debate this important issue. I must start by saying that the Government’s new Environment Act 2021 goes further than ever to help to reduce water pollution in our rivers and seas, now and in the future. In many ways, it directly addresses a number of points that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) has raised in today’s debate.

However, an orchestrated campaign on social media left many thousands of our constituents—people who really care about the quality of our water and river pollution—being bombarded with misinformation. The hon. Member has been very constructive in her contribution to this debate, as I am sure other Members will be, but I hope that the debate will ensure that the true facts are on the record—facts, not fiction.

The fact is that there is nothing new in this Environment Act that creates a right for water companies to dump raw sewage in our water courses. For the first time, the Act creates a statutory duty at the most accountable level of all—the top of Government—to better monitor water quality upstream and downstream of our sewage works, to reduce discharges from storm overflows, and to have clear plans on how to eliminate storm overflows completely in England, and those plans must be in place not at some distant date but in a year’s time. Those are real improvements.

The Act also establishes a new duty for the Environment Agency to publish storm overflow data annually, and water companies will have a duty to publish real-time storm overflow information too. That is quite different from what we saw in the social media disinformation campaign, which created such heightened concern and probably led to today’s debate.

Those are real improvements that matter in my constituency, because we are home to a rare north-flowing salmonid chalk stream, of which there are only 200 in the world. The Loddon springs out of the ground in Buckskin, in the centre of Basingstoke, in my own village of Mapledurwell, and in the surrounding fields. By the time it reaches the sewage works in Chineham, where discharges occur, only two or three miles away, it is still little more than a stream.

In 2006, a water cycle study was undertaken by the local authority to model the impact of large-scale house building, of which Basingstoke has undertaken a great deal in the last two decades, on the River Loddon. Since for more than a decade, I have been working with the Environment Agency and Thames Water to ensure that there are improvements and protections for the quality of our river and that the right measures are in place at our sewage works in Chineham. Indeed, it has one of the toughest consent levels in the country for phosphates. In 2015, some successful lobbying meant that new technology was trialled at the Basingstoke plant rather than it happening somewhere else.

We have been doing a great deal, but we welcome the extra measures in the Act to go further. Some aspects of the river have improved, but others have not. The Minister can help with some of those things, but others she simply cannot. For example, there has been a significant increase in the local crayfish population in the Loddon, which has tipped the river into poor status not because there has been an increase in pollution, but because the crayfish eat the eggs of the course fish. That kind of detail is often lost in social media campaigns, which can misrepresent the information that the Environment Agency gathers. I am interested to know what work the Minister will do to educate local councillors and schools on such information.

The new Act also provides the opportunity to tackle storm water discharges, which is incredibly welcome. Let us be clear: if those discharges did not happen, the storm water would simply flood homes and businesses, which would be completely unacceptable. The measures in the new Act mean that plans must be developed to reduce storm water and, eventually, eliminate it.

That is important for me locally, because in April 2020 an almost unprecedented amount of rainfall led the Loddon to experience 40 overflow events. There was insufficient space to store the quantity of storm water, so it had to be released into the river. The situation is unpredictable—there have been only two such events this year—but we need to ensure that future problems with increased rainfall can be dealt with.

A significant contributory cause of the problem is that house builders have an automatic right to connect rainwater drainage to the sewage system. I will focus on that for the Minister. The Government need to bring into force schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which removes developers’ automatic right to connect rainwater drainage to combined sewers, which can put additional storm water pressure on our sewage works’ capacity. What plans do the Government have to tackle that piece of legislation, which is still unenacted?

Overflows in Basingstoke are also caused by high levels of groundwater infiltrating the Thames Water network. Thames Water will work on that through a scheme to reline sewers from 2025 to 2030, plus two upgrades at the Basingstoke sewage works to increase capacity. I am concerned, however, that because Thames Water has done a significant amount of work on the issue already, it does not see Basingstoke as a priority for future investment.

The Act requires a plan to be in place to make improvements at every stage. I stress to the Minister that it cannot be right that a river such as the Loddon, which is little more than a stream as it runs past the Basingstoke sewage works, as I have pointed out, is subject to the same national storm water overflow rules as much larger bodies of water. Will she set out how plans to reduce and eliminate storm water overflow events can take into account the different size of water courses involved? The Loddon may have one of the lowest number of overflow events in the Thames valley, which makes it less of a priority for Thames Water, but it is a small tributary to the Thames when it receives overflow water in Basingstoke.

I pay tribute to the Minister’s work on the issue of water quality, on which she has made so much progress, and it is fitting that she should be responding to today’s debate.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I am not imposing a formal time limit, but hon. Members should keep it in mind that if they take about five minutes each, we will comfortably get in everybody who wishes to speak. I now call Tim Farron, and I see you, Mr Morris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and for his work in this area highlighting this issue. We have much to be grateful to him for. The point that he makes is absolutely right. We can have policies, but what good are they if they are not enforced or the water companies can factor into their spending plans that a fine of perhaps less than £50,000 is a small price to pay when they are able to dish out to their shareholders £2 billion in dividends each year?

I am absolutely proud of the English lakes and of our waterways. We have glorious lakes, rivers and streams in our community, and I want to keep them clean, but at the moment the water companies have permission to take advantage of the fact that they are allowed to have these emissions, and they are not being held to account via the legal process.

I would like the Minister to reflect on the issues raised today and to tell me what plan she has to help us in the Lake district to ensure that the best visitor attraction in the country, and the biggest outside of London, is kept clean and pristine, and something that we can all remain proud of.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

To get the remaining 12 Back-Bench speeches in, I will have to cut the time limit for speeches to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Paisley, for allowing me to contribute briefly to this important debate.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Well, you did write to me.

[Philip Dunne]

I was intending to intervene, but if I have a couple of minutes, I will take advantage of them.

The petition that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke to—I apologise to her for not being here for her speech—was stimulated by some of the campaign groups with whom I worked when I introduced my private Member’s Bill in 2020. It reflects, as Members have said, the widespread growing awareness of, and horror at, the state of our rivers as a consequence of the uncontrolled dumping of sewage in river systems by water treatment works and the water sewage system, which has been overwhelmed for a variety of reasons. I want to touch on two areas where it is really important that we take things forward, now that the Environment Act has become law.

I completely disagree with the description that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for whom I normally have a lot of time, gave of the amendment that was finally made to the Bill. He is simply wrong. The Act will lead to a progressive reduction in sewer discharges, and that will be enforceable in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and as I described in the closing stages of consideration of Lords amendments.

I want to touch on two points, one of them raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. We will have a planning Bill before us before long. It has to include measures for the proper separation of surface and foul water systems for new developments. Water running off hard standing in all new developments across the country can, through the right to connect, be connected to foul water drainage systems. That is what leads to an overwhelming quantity of water causing problems in the treatment works, which have not been expanded to cope with development over the last 60 or so years. It is a problem that successive Governments have contributed to by not investing enough in the infrastructure of our drainage systems.

The right to connect needs to be dealt with by our having the subsystem to require separation by developers. They should be required to contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure works under the ground; at present, they are not. They have to contribute to the connection charge, but not to the capital for works that would allow full separation for new developments, which is essential.

Finally, I encourage the Minister—I pay tribute to the work that she did to improve the Environment Bill, particularly as it went through the Lords—to adjust Ofwat’s priorities. She has the opportunity to encourage Ofwat, through its forthcoming strategic policy statement, to focus not just on leakage and keeping bills down, but on keeping sewage out of our rivers by investing more in the treatment network for which our water companies are responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would rather not, because I have only a few minutes, and the right hon. Lady has already spoken.

I will talk about the local situation, but first, I want to express concern about reports that raw sewage spills in Honiton are threatening the first wild beaver colony to live on an English river for 400 years, which is part of a trial approved by the Minister’s Department. I hope she will agree that it is wonderful that beavers are being reintroduced into our natural environment, and I am very concerned about the threat to them.

In Bristol, particular issues have arisen recently. Conham river park is a popular wild swimming spot for local residents, and the—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. We have a Division in the House and will come back in 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me. I was concentrating on other things in the 10 years before privatisation—I am not quite that old. If he shares the Opposition’s concerns about the quality of performance of the privatised water companies, I welcome that.

I recognise that the Minister is not likely to give a commitment today to bring the water companies back into public ownership of one sort or another. I will therefore suggest a third way. We could maintain pressure on water companies to bring down the amount of sewage dumped in our streams long after the news cycle has moved on to other issues by giving the consumers of water companies more power, perhaps in the form of a requirement that any increase in bills—or if the Minister were willing to be radical, any increase in the salary of the chief executive and board—has to be approved by the consumers of that company. There should be a water users consumer committee for each water company, with real power to hold to account the board of that company. At the moment, only two committees, without any substantive powers, cover the whole operation of the English water companies. They are clearly not having much impact. I urge the Minister to take away the need to give consumers more direct power over and say in the operation of the water companies on which we all rely.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Grahame Morris. If it is more comfortable for you to remain seated for your speech, I am more than happy to facilitate that.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

That is very kind of you, Mr Paisley. I apologise to you and other Members. I have either a trapped nerve or a pulled muscle. I just cannot bob up and down. It is very painful.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

It is very in vogue to have a bad back at the moment.

[Grahame Morris]

So long as I am either up or down, I am okay; it is getting up and down that is the problem. Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley. I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening this important debate. Water companies are polluting our bathing waters, rivers and beaches. I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise concerns expressed to me by my constituents.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke of storm overflow events. We are told that combined sewage overflows are used in extreme weather conditions. However, in 2020, water companies discharged raw sewage into rivers in England more than 40,000 times. Illegal dumping stems from water companies being allowed to self-report such spills since 2010. We simply cannot permit privately owned water company monopolies to police themselves. Professor Peter Hammond, visiting scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, told Ministers:

“The evidence suggests that in the last decade, ‘early’ dumping of untreated sewage to rivers has been at least 10 times more frequent than EA monitoring and prosecutions suggest”.

I represent a coastal community in County Durham’s only section of coastline. In Durham’s current 2025 county of culture bid, the east Durham heritage coast should be a jewel. Unfortunately, despite the stream of press releases from Durham County Council’s Conservative coalition leadership declaring various environmental and ecological emergencies, repeated concerns about sewage discharges on the east Durham coast seem to have been ignored; we have seen excuses, inaction and a failure to protect public health. The lack of interest in protecting and promoting clean water on the east Durham coast by the council is a scandal. Residents using the safer seas and rivers app, pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and promoted by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will realise that there have been 113 pollution alerts for the County Durham coastline so far in 2021.

Durham County Council deflects any inquiries to the Environment Agency. However, anyone watching recent interviews by Environment Agency spokespeople would be forgiven for thinking they were water company representatives rather than a public regulator.

Combined sewer overflows should be a safety valve used sparingly and only in extreme weather conditions. Instead, legal and illegal dumping of sewage seems to be standard practice and, indeed, the Government are complicit in this situation arising. I have called consistently for this essential public asset to be brought under public control. Ministers need to explain to the public why they value the private monopoly interests of water companies over the health, welfare and wellbeing of the public.

Breed Specific Legislation

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, colleagues, for attending. As you know, there are now hybrid arrangements in place. Suffice it to say that Members who are attending physically—all of us—should clean our spaces before we leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has asked that masks be worn. I suggested before the debate that there will be Divisions at some point. If that is the case, we will adjourn until five minutes after the last vote.

It is my pleasure to call Elliot Colburn to move the motion.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 300561, relating to breed specific legislation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The prayer of the petition states:

“Breed Specific Legislation fails to achieve what Parliament intended, to protect the public. It focuses on specific breeds, which fails to appreciate a dog is not aggressive purely on the basis of its breed. It allows seizure of other breeds, but the rules are not applied homogeneously by councils. We need a system that focuses on the aggressive behaviour of dogs, and the failure of owners to control their dog, rather than the way a dog looks. Reconsider a licensing system. The framework must be applied by local authorities the same, whereas currently some destroy dogs with no court order. It must be much more strictly controlled than it is currently. The system needs to be fairer for all, dogs and humans. We are touched by cases of people committing suicide over the current system.”

When it closed, the petition had reached 118,641 signatures, including 163 from my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. As a dog owner and an animal lover, I feel strongly that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. I have owned breeds that have had a terribly unfair reputation, such as Staffordshire bull terriers. In reality, they have the sweetest temperament and make great pets, as anyone who has owned one will say.

However, certain dog breeds are banned, purely based on their breed, under breed-specific legislation. In the UK, BSL takes the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which bans the breeding, sale and exchange of four breeds of dog: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. However, the law allows a person to keep an individual dog where a court has considered that it does not present a danger to public safety. The court will consider the temperament of the dog, whether the intended keeper is a fit and proper person, and other matters such as the suitability of the accommodation. Dogs placed on the index of exempted dogs may be kept by the owner under strict conditions, including that the dog is neutered, microchipped and kept on a lead and muzzle in public.

The Dangerous Dogs Act came in response to a spate of dog attacks, which it obviously intended to try to reduce. However, judging on the evidence and the discussions that I have been having since the petition reached 100,000 signatures, it is fair to say that the Act was not necessarily based on evidence or science in any great detail. It was really quite a knee-jerk reaction at the time. The aftermath of the Act has suggested that, actually, it may not have worked as intended. All major animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, as well as the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report of 2018, have expressed concern about breed-specific legislation, and I thank them for providing me with briefings prior to the debate.

The data suggest that the Act has, indeed, failed to achieve its intended purpose. The four breeds covered by the Act account for only a small fraction of legal cases brought under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Between 1992 and 2019, only 8% of cases involved those four breeds. At the same time, the number of hospital admissions since the Act was introduced has risen from 3,079 in 1999 to 8,859 in 2020—a 188% increase. Campaigners have also pointed to other areas where the legislation falls down. It fails to tackle the issue of irresponsible owners because the focus is on the breed, which detracts from the real problem of poor animal husbandry, welfare and training of a dog.

Every tragic fatality in the UK involving a dog attack has also involved some element of neglect. The law unfairly targets good dogs. It fails to recognise that any breed can be dangerous in the wrong hands and any large dog can cause horrific injuries. It produces a crime where the burden of proof is on a defendant to prove that their dog is not a banned breed. This leaves owners with the almost impossible task of proving a negative, which also seems contradictory to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

In particular, the Act seems to fail in regard to the pit bull, because that breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club or other dog organisations in the United Kingdom, and therefore the seizure of these breeds has been very patchy and differently applied across the UK. Resemblance to an American pit bull seems to be the primary reason that this is happening. It is an injustice when a dog is held to be this type of dog when, in fact, it is a cross between, for example, a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Labrador—a common cross to be seized because of its resemblance to a pit bull.

There is also the issue of cost. The cost racked up for the taxpayer for kennelling seized dogs is tens of millions of pounds per year. Even when exempted, a dog cannot be transferred or left with others. It must remain muzzled in public, even when in a private car, and must be walked on a lead, even if there is no evidence that it is a danger to a human. That leads to stress for both the dog and the owner. Owners of seized dogs have reported high levels of stress, both for them and for their dog, because they are not sure if the dog will ever be seized again.

There have even been cases of a dog choking while it has been muzzled and the owner being prosecuted for removing the muzzle to save the dog’s life. Sadly, the law does not recognise the need of necessity, so such a dog would be liable to be seized and destroyed, even though it would have died had the muzzle not been removed. In my opinion, that cannot be fair.

There are also issues with the enforcement of the legislation. Evidence from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the RSPCA and Blue Cross, and that submitted to the 2018 EFRA Committee inquiry, suggests that the application of the law is often a postcode lottery, with different police forces and local authorities taking very varied approaches. However, there are a number of common themes.

Well-behaved dogs suffer at the hands of this law because often the seizing itself is a traumatic experience, which is handled brutally and heavy-handedly. The dog is then held in kennels for many months, which has an adverse effect on its temperament, and many good-natured dogs have been reported as being returned to owners with serious behavioural issues, the most common being separation anxiety. There has been photographic and video evidence of the injuries and severe malnutrition that dogs kept by the police have suffered, but when information about the kennel that they were kept in is requested, no legal information is forthcoming to allow dog owners to bring forward any prosecutions or legal challenges.

The law does not tackle public safety effectively and is damaging for dogs and their families in many ways. There are reports of children being traumatised by watching their best friends being dragged away by the police. Scientific studies have shown that young people often form incredibly strong bonds with a family dog, sometimes stronger than with their siblings. Removing an innocent dog from the home can have an incredibly negative effect on a child.

Some owners have been misled as to the nature of the seizing of their dogs and have signed a document that was not properly explained to them. The dog has consequently been destroyed, only for the owner to claim that they were not aware that that was what they were agreeing to. There have been many accusations that the police have wilfully misled owners in order to get a dog destroyed. On some occasions, a dog has even been destroyed without a court order or the informed consent of the owner.

When a dog is seized, it is not allowed to have familiar objects around it, such as favourite toys. It is an incredibly stressful situation for a dog to be seized and put in a kennel, so to further add insult to injury by denying it something familiar seems to me to be cruel. Tragically, there have been cases, as is referred to in the prayer of this petition, of people committing suicide because they could not afford to apply to have their dog exempted. The experience of having the dog removed and not knowing whether it will ever come back has led them to make the decision to take their own life. No one should be put in that position. There should be adequate signposting so that those people are put in contact with the myriad charitable organisations that might be able to help, but the evidence is that it is not forthcoming.

I appreciate that the Government set out strongly in their response to the petition why they do not want to repeal this legislation, which has the support of the police, and frankly I see the political difficulty in doing so. If changes are made to the Dangerous Dogs Act and an attack follows, the political fallout would be severe. Even if there were little to no evidence that the attack was related to the decision, it would not look good.

However, the petitioners—particularly the lead petitioner, Gavin, who I had the pleasure of speaking to before the debate—have suggested a number of options to improve the legislation, not all of which would need primary legislative change. I hope the Minister will take some of them back to the Department. I know that Lord Goldsmith has primary oversight of the enforcement of the legislation, so if the Minister is willing to take some of the suggestions back to see what can be done, that would be very welcome indeed.

The suggestions include reversing the burden of proof and requiring the prosecution to prove that the dog is a banned breed, rather than the other way round. The petitioners suggest ensuring that the law requires dogs to be released in a timely fashion, and enforcing a strict time limit. They suggest ensuring that owners are fully informed of the process and that the police do not accept an agreement for destruction at the point of seizure. The police should ensure that the owner has received any advice that they want and is fully informed of their rights. The petitioners suggest ensuring that those assessing the behaviour of dogs are independent of the police.

The petitioners suggest ensuring that the ownership of seized dogs remains with the owner, who must be informed of all material aspects of the dog’s care requirements, veterinary treatment and so on. They suggest removing the requirement that a dog seized for reason of breed and not for anything it has done must be detained while its case is considered. That is a waste of public funds and causes unnecessary stress to the dogs and the owners. The dog should be able to remain at home if there is no evidence that it is a danger and there is no reason to believe that the owners would not co-operate with the authorities to ensure that reasonable arrangements are put in place.

The petitioners suggest that there should be an assurance that dogs detained for reason of their conduct have their cases heard and considered with the option of putting in place compulsory training and behavioural work. There should not be a jump straight to destruction. They call on the police to use the principle that the aim should be to keep as many dogs alive as possible within the limits of public safety; they should not be minded towards automatic destruction. The petitioners suggest prioritising the hearing of cases so that no dog has to remain in a cage for an inordinate period. They suggest working with an organisation to establish a facility where dogs can be detained, staffed by experts in canine welfare and behaviour, with complete transparency. That would reduce costs far below their current levels, and it should be partly funded by charitable donations.

I appreciate that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has received some new research from the University of Middlesex, which is currently being peer reviewed, so the Minister will want to wait for that to happen before she tells us what it says. I hope the Government will consider some of the suggestions that the charities, campaign groups and petitioners have made. The EFRA Committee inquiry was also pretty damning of the legislation. Those suggestions would improve it, even if primary legislation is not introduced.

Owning a dog is one of the most joyous and rewarding things that I have ever done, and I am sure many people would say the same. Dogs can bring such happiness into the lives of families but, like any animal, they can turn if they are in the wrong hands. The data tell us that breed is a poor indicator of the likelihood of violence. A dog is only as good or bad as the person who owns it. The legislation should reflect that, but it is clear that it is currently littered with issues. I hope the Government will commit to reviewing the evidence further and making improvements to the application of the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate. I thank all those who petitioned and have made suggestions on how the law can be improved in this important area.

I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): I agree that safety is our top priority. He made a characteristically thoughtful speech in which he mentioned how as a boy his morning used to be blighted by a dog on his paper round. I am sure that many of us, while enjoying the company of dogs, have sometimes been frightened by them. It is important that we take the issue of dog attacks extremely seriously. We must crack down on irresponsible dog ownership.

I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of the debate. Of course the behaviour of any dog—any animal—depends on several factors, including the training, the actions of the owner and the environment in which it lives. Hon. Members recognise that we have to balance the views of people who wish to repeal breed-specific legislation with our responsibility to ensure that the public are properly protected from dog attacks.

In this country, however, pit bull types have traditionally been bred for dog fighting, to accentuate their aggressive tendencies. That is not the fault of the dog, of course; people have chosen to do that. Data gathered about fatal dog attacks from 2005 onwards showed that pit bulls have been involved in about one in six of the incidents. That is despite the prohibitions that we have in place, which in themselves have significantly suppressed the number of pit bull types in the UK.

The Metropolitan police tell us that nearly 20% of the dogs found to be dangerously out of control in the area that they police were pit bull types. We have a very small pit bull population that contributes disproportionately to sometimes tragic incidents. That is why we remain concerned that lifting the restrictions, which might result in an increase in the breeding and ownership of pit bulls, could in itself lead to more tragedy.

Despite the general prohibition on those types of dogs, individual prohibited dogs may be kept by their keepers if a court determines that the dog is not a danger to the public. In conducting the assessment, the court will consider the temperament of the dog, its past behaviour, whether the proposed keeper is a fit and proper person and any other relevant circumstances, such as whether the dog will be kept in a suitable environment.

If the court considers that the criteria may be met, the dog can be listed on the index of exempted dogs and kept under strict conditions, including being neutered and being kept on a lead and muzzled in public. We have 3,700 dogs on the index, nearly all of which are pit bulls. None of the pit bulls involved in the fatalities I referred to were registered on that index. The difficulty, of course, is with the animals not on the index.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised concerns that dogs being seized and typed as pit bulls are not actually pit bulls, and that the typing is being done inconsistently. I recognise that pit bull terriers are cross breeds, which is why we refer to them as a type rather than a breed. Identification of prohibited-type dogs is made by dog legislation officers, who are police officers specially trained for the purpose. The same standard is used by all those officers to identify a pit bull type. I have that standard here and I am very happy to share it with my hon. Friend—it is based on the American Dog Breeders Association standard of confirmation. A dog has to exhibit a substantial number of the physical characteristics listed before it will be considered more a pit bull type than any other type of dog.

In relation to rehoming, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, current legislation permits the transfer of keepership when the existing keeper has died or is seriously ill. Case law has also confirmed that in some cases, a person with a pre-existing relationship with the dog can apply to put it on the index. If we were to make any changes such as on rehoming, we should consider the signals that might send about the acceptability of those types of dogs, which are owned illegally unless they are on the index.

I recognise that breed-specific legislation does not address the issue of dog attacks more widely. We have legislation in place to address that: section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act makes it an offence to allow a dog of any breed or type to be “dangerously out of control” in any place. There are significant penalties available to the courts on that.

We recognise that more needs to be done to support responsible dog ownership, to prevent attacks in the first place. That is why we commissioned research, in collaboration with Middlesex University, to look at responsible ownership across all breeds of dog. The research identifies and examines the factors that might cause dog attacks and how to promote responsible dog ownership. The report is still being peer reviewed, but we will publish it in the next couple of months. I am unable, therefore, to share it now, but I would like to share some parts of it with the House, because it is important and the hon. Member for Cambridge asked for further evidence, so it is right that I explain that the Government are seeking to look into this important matter fully.

The report will make recommendations on improving the recording of dog attack incidents so that we have a proper evidence base, as more data in this area is badly needed. We will develop a more consistent approach to enforcement. We will support preventive initiatives, such as the rather wonderfully named LEAD—local environmental awareness on dogs, which is a police-led initiative, partly in Sutton I am glad to say. We will also work on improving the quality and availability of dog training and dog awareness courses. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about education and children being important in this space. That is an important step forward.

The recommendations in the Middlesex University report will provide the basis to consider further reform in this area. I look forward to future discussions on this important subject. It is very important that we proceed with caution on the basis of robust data.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

There are a few minutes left—almost an hour—so if Mr Colburn like to make some final remarks, I think we could find some time.

EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I will be talking to DFDS later today. I pay tribute to what it is trying to do to resolve these problems. Some of the paperwork is complex. Its plan for a consolidation hub at Larkhall is a good one. When we iron out these problems, the system will work.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I take the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to thank the Fisheries Minister for taking a call from us on Christmas eve and again having her office contact us early on Christmas day and Boxing day to clarify the situation. I reject the character assassination that she has been subject to in the past 24 hours, and I think that should be put on record.

I welcome the demise of the Hague preference. That scheme discriminated badly against fishermen in Northern Ireland, but I appeal to the Minister to please not replace that discriminatory process of theft of our fish with a UK replacement that discriminates how quota is shared out within the four nations of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland fishermen will not tolerate using share-out to placate English fishermen who feel they have been let down. I am appealing to the Secretary of State to ensure that we get a fair share-out of that quota.

From Howth to Greencastle, Northern Ireland fishermen now face a deliberate hard border put in place by the Republic of Ireland. We are told that we cannot land in those traditional ports, yet boats from Skibbereen, in the very deep south of the Republic of Ireland, can catch mackerel in British waters and land them in Lisahally in Londonderry. When will the message go from the Government to the EU that we want a fair share-out in the process? If that cannot happen, I appeal to the Government to invoke article 16.

[George Eustice]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Fisheries Minister.  He is absolutely right: she was across the detail of this agreement and was briefing colleagues in the House over the Christmas period.

The hon. Gentleman raises sharing arrangements within the UK. We are consulting closely with each and every part of the UK about how additional opportunities could be shared differently. He is also right that the Hague preference was against the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. That was a concept that the UK created in the late 1970s to try to get a fairer share, but, as is often the case with the EU, it is a system that ended up being used against our interests.

Agriculture Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Government amendments this evening. I am sure the Whips will be delighted to hear that. I thank the Prime Minister for his involvement in getting us to this solution. I also thank the Secretaries of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the Department for International Trade, and I thank the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for all her hard work in bringing us all together. I believe that this is a very good day not only for agriculture and food, but for the environment and animal welfare in this country and across the world.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that his opinions are very well regarded in Ulster by many of the farmers there. What would he say to the farmers in my constituency? Does he believe that the Bill, with the amendments that he is supporting, now addresses the concerns that have been expressed by farmers and consumers across Ulster about food standards, and are they now properly protected?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that it does, because it brings us the opportunity to have the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis for three years. That has to report on every individual trade deal and it will give us that opportunity to scrutinise them, but it will be up to all of us Members in this House to make sure that the Government do stand up to the high standards. That is what I would say to the farmers of Ulster.

The work that the Government have done to bring this forward over the weekend has been very welcome. We have recognised the need to put our manifesto commitments in law and give everyone confidence that our standards are a priority and will not be traded away. This new Government amendment to the Agriculture Bill, along with extending the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the Trade Bill, is very welcome and I will be voting for the amendment.

Our Lordships—I pay particular tribute to Lord Curry—have rightly kept the pressure up with their amendments and helped to bring this about tonight. Government Members, along with the National Farmers Union and others, have been working very hard to find a way that we can show our commitment to the highest standards of food production in law. The Government amendment to the Bill is not quite perfect, but I accept that it is very hard to put these things in legislation, and they have moved a very long way from where we were. I am very grateful for the fact that we are here tonight and I think that all my Government colleagues can very much come together on this. We all know that trade deals are a tough business. Every country wants the very best for its business and its people.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she is a hard-working campaigner for the fishing industry that benefits her community in Hull. That is why we believe that landing seafood caught in British waters in British ports will help to level up our coastal community. It will support jobs not just on boats, but in landing, processing and onward transportation.

With the sustainability objective, there is still time to seize the chance offered by amendment 2 to put in place fisheries legislation that begins to reverse biodiversity decline. In the Conservative election manifesto, voters were promised

“a legal commitment to fish sustainably”.

By the Government’s own admission, we will not be able to achieve the 2020 target for the good environmental status for many years

“unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the important things we must do to sustain our fishing communities is to ensure that our ports and landing areas are improved? There should be additional support for those areas so that we really can benefit from an increase in our seafaring catch.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, was asked—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

When the sponsor body plans to commence the decant of Parliament in advance of the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

On current plans, decant would be in the mid-2020s and the proposed approach to the works and the schedule would be put to both Houses for agreement before that. While the restoration work continues to be vital, we are currently reviewing the approach, and we of course welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and all colleagues.

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not the case that these plans have now effectively been mothballed and scrapped, and that Parliament is not going to proceed with the full refurbishment as originally planned? If that is the case, what measures will be put in place to maintain this wonderful historic building and keep it safe from fire and damage?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the risks from fire, flood and falling masonry. He was of course a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, and those works remain vital. We all have in mind the need for the uninterrupted effectiveness of Parliament in scrutinising the Government and in working on behalf of our constituents, but we also know that we must do that while providing the good value for money that is rightly demanded by our constituents, and that is what is at the heart of the current review.